Happy 4th of Quinctilis!

Greetings Citizens! I just wanted to wish everyone a Happy 4th of Quinctilis! The watchword from the Republic of Utica this 4th is to say to the Cult of Personality.

For those who do not remember, the Republic of Utica does not engage in any Cult of a man. Nor do we honor any Leftists striving for dictatorship. That is why we have returned the Imperial names of the months of Julius (July) and Augustus (August) to their Republican usages of Quinctilis and Sextilis. Cato Uticensis died rather than bow down to Caesar, are we going to give Caesar a reverance?

I am glad that the new Republic was formed the first week of the month honoring the man who ended the last Great Republic. Let the Declaration of Independence be our guide!

In tearing down the Cult of Personality of Left wing Dictators past, we can strike a blow against Left Wing Dictators present- like Kim Jong-il, Castro and Chavez and Left Wing Dictators future- like Barack Obama. Let us show the "messiah" that he will not receive a kow-tow from any American!

Let freedom ring! Happy 4th of Quinctilis!

FACE TO FACE WITH MY OWN EXTREMISM

My name is Matt and I am a right wing extremist. One of King Obama’s Court Jesters, Janet Napolitano, has designated me as such not too long ago. This, of course, is hardly the first time that the Orwellian Left has called patriots who love America “Extremist.” If you listened to these people you’d think a mad scientist cloned a mixture of Hitler, Hoover and Torquemada and got him elected president every time a Republican sat in the White House. Isn’t it sad to be so tightly wrapped? But then, as I looked back over the course of History, I realized that the Left was right (ha!) to label us extremists. We are. People who love Liberty and hate Tyranny are a threat to tyrants, obviously. But also lovers of Liberty are, by definition, extremist.

Of the two hundred and some countries on this planet, more than half are governed by Dictators whose main virtue is they aren’t as bad as Idi Amin. Not every country is that lucky, however. Most of Europe is free, but the Socialist Bureaucrats of Western Europe are strangling what Liberty remains in those parts. Political Correctness is disseminated by a thoroughly Leftist Dominated Media in most of those countries. If a bunch of Right Wing Extremist Libertarians don’t rise up and restore Western Europe to the great Christian civilization it once was, Old Europe has a generation or two before it joins the Third World, either as Socialist rust-belts, or under Sharia law, whichever happens first. Eastern Europe is free and does have some chance of remaining so. All thanks to America’s 40th President, who Leftists called a Nazi. And that was one of the nicer things they called him. Several countries on the Asian fringe have decent republican governments, but these are beach-heads on the great landmass of Asia, most of which is not free. Latin America pays lip-service to republicanism, and a few countries do better than that. However, behind our backs, Hugo Chevez has eliminated much of Venezuela’s freedom and used his petrodollars to illegally finance Left Wing rogues in nearly every country there. The freedom that Nicaragua enjoyed, after a long struggle and so much blood, is now a memory, that country being back in the hands of its once and future thug dictator, Daniel Ortega, who recently lectured our president on the evils of America. And our so-called President didn’t hesitate to kiss his rear. Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Paraguay and others are similarly ruled by Leftist thugs. Colombia, the one truly free country, is besieged by the Communist FARC who deal cocaine and commit horrible acts of terrorism to rival those of Osama bin Laden.

There is not a lot of Liberty left on this planet, and that which exists is under fierce assault by Neo-Marxists and Islamofascists. It is far easier to kneel to a tyrant than to think for oneself and be free. And mankind has a long history of taking that easy road. Thank God for the extremists throughout history who didn’t take it.

Who could argue that Leonidas and his 300 at Thermopylai were extremists? That is precisely why they are so admired, for their extremism in defense of Liberty. Their equivalent of the UN, the Persian empire, demanded earth and water of them. Totally reasonable, argued all the many who knelt to the Persian King. But Leonidas and many of his fellow Greeks knew that if you allowed someone to tyrannize you in small things, the day when they tyrannized you in greater things was not far off. Thus they rudely refused the Great King’s “reasonable” offer. If Leonidas had been a moderate and sent earth and water, who would remember him today? Many Greeks “medized” and submitted to the Persian King, such as Macedon and Thebes. Do we remember any of their great leaders who were oh-so-wise, oh-so-moderate and not at all extremist? Are they worth remembering?

Cato the Younger, aka Cato Uticensis, was held to be an extremist for resisting the Monarchical ambitions of Caesar. All too many sheep believed Caesar was SAVING the Republic.

The Dutch in the 16th century were a prosperous province of Spain. The Spanish had run up large debts and had wars against France to fight. They began taxing the Dutch, as well as demanding religious conformity of the Dutch Calvinists. Now the moderate, reasonable thing to do would have been to kiss the Spanish King’s ring, submit to his religious decrees and, naturally pay the ever growing tax burden. But the Dutch had to go and be extremist, fight for religious and political freedom. The Dutch Calvinists were very scary extremist people to the moderates who licked the boots of monarchs across Europe at that time. They formed the first modern Republic, treating women and commoners far better than anywhere else. This caused great offense. The fear grew when their fellow Calvinists, the Puritans of England, tried to turn England into the second modern Republic. To this day, the statue of their right-wing Christian extremist leader, Oliver Cromwell, stands outside Parliament, honoring the man who first made that body supreme to any King.

Likewise those rascally Sons of Liberty and the Minutemen of Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill were big time extremists. Moderates back in 1775 and 1776 wondered why they didn’t just pay their taxes and obey their King. Indeed, had there been a UN in 1776, they no doubt, most nations representing their Kings, would have condemned the rascally insurrectionists and demanded forthwith that they submit to their lawful sovereign, George III. And many Americans were indeed good Loyalists. In the North, most Patriots tended to be from the countryside. “The Country People” they were called. The Loyalists tended to be more of an urban cultural elite, the forerunners of modern Liberals, who follow 240 years of tradition in wanting Americans to submit to European and other Old World Dictators. New England’s “Country People” are the ancestors of the people in Utah, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas and similar places. Together with George Washington’s southern Army they fought for America’s cause. And we Conservatives, their descendants, more of us by adoption than blood, ARE extremists. We’ve always been since we fired the shot heard round the world!

Janet Napolitano, a barking , running dog for a tyrant, is correct in labeling me as a right wing extremist. She, like her fellow monarchists, do fear lovers of Liberty. So do most of the Idi Amin wannabes around the globe. Yes, I am an extremist. In the tradition of Sam Adams. And I am frickin’ proud of it. It’s time for another shot heard round the world!

Ode To Cowboys

I have wanted to write this piece for some time, and primarily, it is a response to Hillary Clinton more than to the messiah B-HO, although it certainly does apply to him too. Back during Operation Chaos and the Democratic Primary, Hillary the Harpy crowed “the era of cowboy diplomacy is over.” Hillary is now our Secretary of State and the “messiah” is certainly as opposed to American self-determination as she is. What a supreme irony it was that Hillary, an ultra-Left Winger whose sordid past includes associations with Black Panthers, became the standard bearer of the more Centrist and Conservative Democrats during Operation Chaos.

But, I digress. Anti-American Socialists from Europe, North America and elsewhere love to look down their royal noses at the “cowboys” from Middle America. So we must examine, what is a cowboy? What do they REALLY mean in their derision?

First a quick examination of the origins of cowboys is in order. Who were their ancestors? Well, as I have pointed out in other Republic of Utica posts, the American Revolution was fought by an Army of Southerners under George Washington, who came to the aid of Northern militiamen from small towns and rural areas of Northern States. These were the ancestors of modern Conservatism. The Urban Elites, who loved their King, bowed down to him, and wanted his rule over North America to continue, are the fore-runners, if not in most cases the actual ancestors by blood, of modern Liberals. They supported their red-coat troops and hoped they would prevail over “the Country People.” Those that shouted “Long Live Liberty” as blue-coats marched through the streets and “God Save the King” as the red-coats marched past, not truly caring who won, are the fore-runners of the modern “moderate,” although I can think of several other words far more appropriate.

In the 19th century, as America moved westward, the descendents the Patriots of Concord, Lexington and Bunker Hill, aka “the Country People” moved into states like Idaho, Utah, Montana, Nebraska, Kansas and other states that modern Liberals love to look down upon. The descendents of the Southerners who fought under Washington also moved West, but more to the South, into states like Texas and Arizona. Some Northerners settled Texas, some Southerners settled the Dakotas. It wasn’t set in stone, but that was the general trend. Our Urban areas were, naturally, a mixed bag population wise, but those Urban Elites that had supported their King, still remained, though in diminished numbers, as many had fled to His Majesty’s Dominion of Canada. After the West was tamed, they took the trains, and later planes over to the West Coast and became the bi-coastal Elite.

What were cowboys like? They emulated the Spanish vaqueros who followed their centuries old traditions. Spain had been cattle country and the Spanish made America likewise during the 16th and 17th centuries. Americans learned their ways.

Cowboys cared for large herds of cattle, an arduous task, and brought them to markets. Like modern day oil men, they brought a highly valuable product to millions who depended on it and in return were often treated like criminals, though they usually had done nothing wrong. Cowboys were looked down upon by more “settled” people for their rugged ways and their fierce independence. A cowboy rarely relied on others for his subsistence, on the contrary, he brought good subsistence to others.

In “Braveheart” there was an exchange in Latin between an English Lord and William Wallace, the Englander referred to Wallace as a savage. But the term he used was homo indomitus which is slang for “savage” but literally means “man without a master.” And that is why William Wallace said “ego sum homo indomitus” (“I am a man without a master”). The cowboy, like Wallace, is someone that an effete decadent Liberal would call homo indomitus, to which he would reply, “indeed I am a man without a master.” A cowboy is a free independent man who doesn’t want anything from anyone, just to left alone in his freedom. As reasonable as that sounds, it would amaze some at how this mortally offends people like Hillary Clinton, Jaques Chirac John Kerry, or the messiah Obama. B-HO’s comment about how people in Middle America “cling to their guns and religion” is another Liberal truism said in this vein. Yes, we “cowboys” cling to our guns and religion. We cling to that which made us free and to that which keeps us free. In his “wisdom” the messiah wants us to give these things up, along with our freedom and bow down to him like Egyptian fellahin have bowed down to pharaohs and sultans for the past five thousand years.

Obama, the Republic of Utica does not bow down to you, it raises the standard of freedom against you, in defiance of you. As Cicero said in De Republica, “when a government is honest, just and virtuous, taxes are light. But when it becomes powerful it is destructive, extravagant and violent ; it is a usurer which takes bread from innocent mouths and deprives honorable men of their substance, for votes with which to perpetuate itself.” What does that mean to us today? Look for many more Waco and Ruby Ridge-style incidents under the sublime leadership of B-HO the messiah. A trillion dollars in new spending! A trillion is a number Cicero probably could not have fathomed.

Hillary, her husband Bill, the “messiah”, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi just don’t get it. They can’t understand why we’d rather be free than subservient to them and their European and Asian friends. Just as the late 18th-century urban elites never got the Patriots of Concord and Lexington. They don’t understand why we just won’t submit. The Republic of Utica intends to continue to baffle them.

Robin Hood Was A Conservative

Liberals have wrongly appropriated Robin Hood as one of their heroes and some Conservatives are likewise inclined to banish him from view. I do not know if it is true or not, but according to what I was once told, some Conservatives try to remove Robin Hood from school reading lists. They should not. Robin Hood was a Conservative Christian Militiaman fighting against oppressive taxation.

As Cicero said in De Republica “when a government is honest and just and virtuous taxes are light. But when a government becomes powerful it is destructive, extravagant and violent; it is a usurer which takes bread from innocent mouths and deprives honorable men of their substance, for votes with which to perpetuate itself.” This could well describe the Federal Government under Obama, as well as the Sheriff of Nottingham’s governance.

Robin Hood had no problem with honest men being wealthy. He himself was a Feudal Lord, in the days both before and after his crusade against Nottingham. However, his government’s absolutist tyranny and oppressive taxation geared to favor some at the expense of the labor of others, reduced all honest men, noble or common, to penury or starvation. It had become Hobbes’ Leviathan.

The local church had turned its back on true Faith “observing the form of religion but denying any true power to it” as the Scripture says. Robin Hood and his Merry Men were ministered to by Friar Tuck, a man of true Faith in the tradition of Thomas a Becket, Francis of Assissi or Thomas Aquinas.

Robin Hood and his men were Christian Militiamen fighting against an overtaxing Big Government which had ceased to truly honor God. Conservatives should embrace this hero and emulate him, and not allow his memory to be stolen by Liberals in the manner that they try to steal that of our Founding Fathers. Take back Robin Hood!!!!

I Stand With the Jews

It is time, past time indeed, for the Republic of Utica to say the words of Italian patriot Oriana Fellaci. “I stand with the Jews.” I should have written this the day that the Islamofascist woman told some of my Jewish brothers in Florida to “go back to the ovens.” The Republic of Utica is not Anti-Muslim. The people of Gaza are entitled to freedom and dignity. I have unwaveringly supported the war in Iraq because its people are entitled to self-determination, not rule by ‘al-Qaeda. Same for Afghanistan, both in the '80s and today. But as Rush Limbaugh and other great commentators say “elections have consequences.” We Americans are going to have this hit us between the eyes with a sledgehammer on January 21st, but that is a topic for another time. Gaza elected Hamas to lead them and we all respected that. But elections DO have consequences. Hitler was duly elected the leader of Germany, but no one outside of Germany elected him to invade their country. The consequence of their 1932 election was a world crusade against them that cast their society into ruins. And the only ones to blame were Hitler and those who supported him.

Likewise, Gazans bear responsibility for their choices. There would be no excuse for the Israelis targeting Palestinian civilians deliberately. And indeed, the Israelis have jeopardized the lives of their own soldiers by telling the civil populace where they intend to strike. What Army in history has ever done that? NONE. There is no reasonable argument against acknowledging Israel’s efforts to reduce civilian casualties. Add to that Israel was not molesting Gaza in anyway. All Jews have departed Gaza and its environs, its people govern themselves. The wall that keeps terrorists out of Israel also keeps anyone who might have ill-will for the Palestinians out of Gaza. Hamas’ rocket-firing into Israel was 100% unprovoked and it shows that nothing has changed with Hamas, being the Government of Gaza has not made them any more moderate or responsible.

I studied the Holocaust as an adolescent. At the age of 12 I read everything I could on World War II and the “Final Solution” also. I remember reading the stories of Auschwitz, the Warsaw Ghetto, Theresienstadt and other horrible places. I believed in my young, naïve heart that such horrors would never happen again. How could they? General Patton had stomped the Nazi beast into the ground, it would never rise again. The Jews were safe in the world where America set things to right. How I wish that boyish view of the world were true. We must never allow ourselves this complacency. German Jews in the 1930s loved their Germany and they couldn’t believe that the land of Geothe and Schiller would ever do them any real harm. Most Germans who supported Hitler told themselves and others the same thing. The Nazis were decent people, they just took things a little far, they said. Citizens, DO NOT ALLOW YOURSELVES TO BE DECEIVED BY SUCH SOPHISTRY!

Most Muslims are decent people. So were most Germans in 1932. But there is a disease among many Muslims today. Many are blaming every ill on the Jews. In the madrassas and on Palestinian television, hatred of Jews is being taught, even to the smallest of children. Remember the picture of the little Muslim girl in Germany who had plastic dynamite strapped to her like toys. IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN. Citizens, ask yourselves what would happen if Hamas took over Tel Aviv? What do you imagine would take place? Do you think Hamas would telegraph its movements by texting Israeli citizens and telling them to take cover? No. Anyone with a shred of honesty or any knowledge of Hamas knows that the bodies would be stacked more than a storey high. This must not be allowed to happen.

As a boy I lived in Vienna for a few years and people remembered the Nazi era. “Nie Wieder” (never again) they always said in reference to the Holocaust and I remember a picture on a “Nie Wieder” sticker showing someone demolishing a swastika. But those who are coming for the Jews today are not wearing swastikas. They pose as “victims” of Zionism. Beware of the Cult of Victimhood. The Germans of the 1930s claimed victim hood, as did the perpetrators of the Russian Revolution of 1917, the builders of Pol Pot’s Cambodia. Untold fathoms of the most horrific atrocities have been committed in the name of setting someone’s “victimhood” to rights.

As Christian Americans, the heirs of Washington, Jefferson, Patton and Reagan, it is our duty to stand. We must stand firm with our Jewish brothers, God’s Chosen people, and say that if you come for the Jews, you have to go through me.

A More Perfect Soviet Union

I wonder who Barak Hussein Obama is trying to convince of his American-ness, him or us? Most likely the latter, as I don’t for a moment believe he any more affection for this country in his heart than False Reverend Jeremiah “God D#mn America” Wright, any more than he is more honest than Rod Blagojevich. And to take a moment with that, a Pastor is a person’s teacher. He is not an acquaintance that you see at the Supermarket on Thursday or run into while having latter or merlot. This is someone who you trust to have knowledge of Scripture and a way of living that conforms to God’s Will. Thus the “guilt by association” argument doesn’t wash. Wright was Obama’s teacher of 20 years. Just like the ones at the madrassah he attended in Indonesia as a young America Hater. And the gods of the Liberal Media made their Olympian decree that we could not mention Wright because “there’s more important things to talk about.” So we dropped talking about B-HO’s association with his fellow traitors Wright and Bill Ayers and promptly moved on to the more important topic of Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

ANYWAYS….. B-HO is riding a train acting like he’s an American, the next incarnation of Lincoln. It is laughable, or it would be if this crazy man weren’t about to be President. He urged us to move forward and continue creating a more perfect Union. Unfortunately, given his Marxist belief, I think he must have meant a more perfect Soviet Union. My response to B-HO is “no thanks.” I might take him more seriously if his ideas were not so alien to America. He is no friend to the US military which defends our freedom, he plans to cut that back. All he has to offer us is high taxes (real smart to do in the middle of a recession) and taking those high taxes and setting up more failed welfare programs. He intends to increase the bureaucracy exponentially, already having created new, useless departments for the government. He is keeping his campaign volunteers ready to disseminate more of his lies and vacuous statements. In other words he will be in permanent campaign mode, the 2012 B-HO re-election campaign has already begun. AND YOU WILL LOVE BIG BROTHER!

B. Hussein Obama is not an heir of the Patriots of Bunker Hill, Concord and Lexington, as he claims. On the contrary, he is the heir of the Loyalists who loved their King and thought anyone who wouldn’t bow down to him as rapscallions. The Patriots of old, heirs to modern “right wing Christian extremists” were the so-called “Country People.” They were from the farms and the small towns of the North who led the revolt. Most of the Loyalists were an Urban Cultural Elite, like Modern Liberals. The “Country People” after Bunker Hill realized that they could not defeat the Armies of the British Empire on their own, so they called upon their brothers in the South. The Southern Army, led by George Washington, came North, and, slowly and painfully after years won the Revolutionary War. George Washington and his Army were Southerners, obviously. The “Country People” who made up the Northern Patriots, are the ancestors of the people living in Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas and other Flyover “Red States” that our Liberal Cultural Elite turn their noses up at today. Many of the Loyalists fled to Canada, but many remained, in their Urban Cultural Elite centers in the Northeast and later set them up on the Pacific Coast. Their successors are the ones who elected B-HO. And there is no difference between the Loyalists of old and B-HO. We fought the Revolution, in part, over high taxation, but also other government intrusions upon our liberty. Also we believed “No King but Jesus” as the Revolutionary War Cry went. We believed John Locke’s treatise which said that God (the God of the Bible, not the Deist God) desired men to be free, it was other men that made slaves out of their brothers. But the Loyalists loved their King and didn’t care if he taxed us, quartered his troops on us, silenced our journalists or whatever else he cared to do.

Obama is just like them. He thinks UN autocrats from Europe should dictate the affairs of this country, rather than Americans, and you can rely on him being properly submissive. He wants to tax everything that moves (and everything that doesn’t move). He wants to create a private army, loyal only to him. He opposes everything the Patriots of late 18th century New England stood for.

No, B-HO, riding in a train and flying an American flag somewhere is not going to fool us. You are pretending to be another Abraham Lincoln, so I will give you a quote from him- “you can fool all of the people some of the time (like you did last November) and you can fool some of the people all of the time (like the people who look at you as the Messiah) but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

My Fear For America, and My Hope

I studied Russian History at FSU. The professor, though a Liberal, was not some doctrinaire Lib, but a wonderful man, and an ardent opponent of Communism. He told us a story once about what happened when Mikhail Gorbachev first took power in the Soviet Union, he wanted to reform the Soviet communist system. His goal was to preserve it, not to abolish it. Other people did that later. But when he set out to improve its functionality, he asked his ministers how the Soviet Economic System worked. And his economic wonks had no idea!!! Apparently they even checked the CIA Factbook on the USSR to get some idea. At the rate America’s government is growing, with the phalanxes of unelected bureaucrats and ACLU-type lawyers tyrannizing Americans and spending out of control, I fear some US President ten, twenty or thirty years from now asking some people from Treasury hoe the US Economy works and getting nothing but sheepish grins and shrugs. Perhaps they will look in the Chinese Intelligence Service’s US Factbook for ideas.

We cannot allow this to happen. And only Revolutionary change will prevent it. What we need to do is put the Beltway politicians, the unelected bureaucrats, the ACLU and other out-of-touch types in Washington out of business. And there is one way we can do it, with the help of the American people.

When Mustafa Kemal aka Kemal Ataturk wanted Turkey to become a modern Republic in the wake of World War I, he faced off against the Ottoman Dynasty, which had ruled the Turkish people since the 14th century. In the Ottoman capital in Constantinople, there was an ancient, entrenched bureaucracy that would make ours, bad as they are, look like Kindergartners. Ataturk did not march on this ancient city. No, he put them out of business by setting up a rival capital at Ankara and letting the bureaucrats and the Sultan, out of touch and distant from everyday Turkish people, whither on the vine. It was not long before Ankara became the reality, and Constantinople an old fairy-tale land.

This is how America can have a non-violent Revolution against Washington. We hold a Constitutional Convention in a city in Flyover country. My preference would be Montgomery, Alabama, the site of Judge Roy Moore’s principled stand against Federal tyranny in the name of religious freedom. However, Kansas City might be a suitable alternative. Salt Lake City, Cheyenne, Denver or Nashville also have potential. We want a decent size city, but not one of the giant metropolises like Chicago with its corrupt machine which is now foisting B-HO on us. America’s capital city must exist to serve the people, not exist to be served by the people. Washington DC was like that in the early 1800s, and was built to be a smaller metropolis, not a Constantinople with a Byzantine Bureaucracy. The pros have circumvented this original intent. And it is time for the American people to circumvent them.

Much of what goes on in Washington is in no ways substantiated by the Constitution. A pastor friend of mine from my Montgomery days wished to build a Ten Commandments monument ON HIS OWN PROPERTY in Washington DC and was told by a bureaucrat that no one elected, but who we pay for with our taxes, that he could not do so based on the non-existent Separation of Church and State. You will not find this law anywhere in the US Constitution, but many unelected tyrants can silence your freedom of speech and religion based on this law from the Soviet Constitution.

We need a new Constitutional Convention to sweep away some of the outrages of the Federal Courts, end runaway spending, and more clearly enumerate the powers of the new Federal Government. Yes, we need to have a Federal Government with teeth. We need to have the best Air Force and Marines and Tank Divisions and Aircraft Carriers in the world for our safety. Individual states cannot do it on their own. The Federal Government can’t be allowed to run our lives, but State governments are capable of committing outrages too. State Governments need to be strong and keep the Federal Government honest. And Federals need to help clean up local corruption. What we need is BALANCE. The American System, expressed in the Declaration of Independence with Locke’s philosophy, acknowledges that God is the only just Judge. No government run by men can be trusted without check and balance. That is what our system is supposed to be- one of checks and balances. That includes States vs. Federals. Each is supposed to check the other. But now there is no check on the Federal Government, especially on its tyrannical Court System.

We the People are the last possible check on Washington, and I am sure the Father of our country is angry at how his name has become synonymous with strangulating red tape. No, we need to start over, and the way is for the states and the people to make a new capital in a Middle American city, where American , not Eurosocialist values predominate, where Beltway-Chicago style corruption is not rampant. Send no more taxes to Washington, let them work for a living over there for a change, and return our nation to the type of can-do Americans who made it great. Let Washington wither on the vine and turn it into a museum.

Great Depression, My Eye

Liberal scaremongers are feeding the garbage line that America is in the worst economic crisis since 1929. Now, I am uncertain if they are so utterly ignorant as to actually believe this, or if they are just lying, as people who pimp out Liberal ideology frequently do. I guess it depends on which Liberal is squawking. It is not the first time that they have foisted these lies on us. Indeed, every Republican leader is a reincarnation of Herbert Hoover if you listen to the pundits on the Left, and his economic policies are about to bring forth the next Great Depression. Bill Clinton, Lord of Lies, until recently dethroned by B-HO in this position, got himself elected by repeating the mantra that the recession of 1992 was the worst economy in 50 years. It was an absolute lie. The Demos in 2002, with America in the wake of an economic slump caused by 9-11, were saying that it was the Great Depression again. They were trying that again in 2004, although it rang even more hollow than usual at that time, as we were in the beginning of the best economy America ever had from the end of ‘04 until ‘07, the year the Democrats came to control Congress.

No, the worst economy in America since 1945 occurred the last time Liberal Democrats ran all three branches of government for more than two years. I refer to the period of the late ‘70s, when Jimmy Carter, the biggest disgrace to the office of the Presidency (another distinction which may well be broken by B-HO), told us to cope with high energy prices by turning down the heat and putting on a sweater, like he himself did in the White House. Currently unemployment is at around 7%, up from just over 4%. The 4% was a record, never having been equaled. For the first time in history, every American who wanted a job had one. Before the middle of Bush’s term, with the Republican Congress in control, we had never dropped below 5% unemployment in our history and having 6% was pretty darned good. In 1980 we had unemployment of 13% compared with 19% in 1930. We had spent the 1970s with a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress and four years under Jimmy Carter’s compassionate Liberal governance. We had double digit inflation in the 1970s, our dollar was being devalued. By the late 1970s, our military was gutted, demoralized and riddled with drug-abusers. My childhood memories of the seventies include America being referred to as “the second most powerful nation on Earth,” after the Soviet Union. They include vague early childhood memories of the long gas lines. Many people believed that America’s best days were behind her at that time. Soviet Communist Doctrine stated that the Capitalist society would begin to tear itself apart and collapse from within on the eve of their Global Revolution where the socialist Workers’ Paradise would be birthed over the entire globe. In 1980, many Communists believed that day had come.

In addition to the economic shambles America was humiliated on a daily by the tag-team of the USSR and Iran. Our Great Leader Carter’s response was typically “thank you sir, may I have another?”

To add insult to injury, the Democrats who blame George W Bush for the current economic hit are the ones who caused it. Especially to hear deviant thug Barney Frank is incredibly galling. Referring to Bush as not a real president? When was the last time the state of Massachusetts sent someone to the House or Senate who wasn’t an anti-American scumbag? Decades.

It was the “Distinguished Gentleman” Frank who was the architect of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Home Loan fiasco. It was he who used the power of government to strong-arm our financial institutions into making loans that most likely would never be repaid. And now that our financial institutions are failing it’s W’s fault? Right. Well, when you have an Orwellian Liberal Media turning your Big Lies into truth, you can get away with it.

The Orwellian Democrats rely on Americans letting the real record of their “accomplishments” go down the “memory hole.” They called Republican campaigns “smears” when we point out how they like to hob-nob with terrorists, or give aid and comfort to North Vietnam. It’s not a smear if something is true. It is a smear to blame the Republicans for an economic disaster caused by them. It is a smear to say that our present economy is the worst ever. We are just coming down off the economy that we had under a Republican president and Congress, which was the best ever. In her December 29 column, Froma Harrop, Democratic propagandist, said “it was very 2005 to read of couples using a service to water the two tomato plants on their deck. And of teenage daughters being given private Pilates instruction.” What she was inadvertently admitting, in her typical snotty style , was that 2005 was a time of unparalleled prosperity in America. That was the inaugural year of Bush’s 2nd term and of the 108th Congress, which had the widest margin of Republicans since the 1920s. America prospered under Republican leadership. And, for the record, the Republic of Utica is not shilling for the GOP. Many Republican politicians have turned their backs on Conservative principles and have paid at the polls in the past two election cycles for it. But, for all their many flaws, the economy was the best we ever had in American history under their watch. Economists have determined that the current recession began in November or December of 2007. That was in the inaugural year of the Democratic Congress, just as their policies were beginning to take hold.

The Left makes many Orwellian lies. Nobody in their right mind would vote for them otherwise. But they cannot be allowed to get away with portraying our current economic woes (when things were about the same as they are now or even slightly worse in the early ‘80s, after what we went through in the ‘70s, we considered it Heaven), such as they are, as a Great Depression, or that Republicans caused them.

Leftism and the Brief History of Republics

I have touched on this topic in previous Republic of Utica posts. Every Republic and democracy in history has had Liberals, or a left, trying to undermine its foundations. In a way this is something that should confort Conservatives at this dark hour of the Republic, and in another it would not. These Leftists have always been with us. There is nothing new under the Sun as regards them. On the other hand, they have successfully undermined every free country that ever existed.







It begins more than a thousand years before the birth of Christ, in Israel, the Promised Land. It was I Samuel 8. The Israelites had been freed from slavery under Pharoah. After Joshua led the people into the Promised Land, then began the era of the Judges. The people were free, and had no King, they lived by God's Law, arbitrated by judges. In Chapter 8 of Samuel it says that the people of Israel clammored for a King, like the other nations surrounding Israel had. It is much the same as Liberals today who want to have a Socialist Dictator or Oligarchy just like the rest of the nations of the world.







Samuel warned the Israelites (NIV I Sam 11-20) "10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle ^[b] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles." "

They did not want to be free and rely on God, as He intended. They wanted a despot. Later on, in the Books of Kings and Chronicles, after the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon, Solomon's son Rehoboam took the throne. When the people asked for tax relief and a reduction of corvee, Rehoboam responded that his thumb would be thicker than his father's waist, that his father chastised them with whips and he would chastise them with scorpions. So ends that sad episode.

The story continues several centuries later, when Athens and Sparta were at war, there had been a stalemate in the beginning, Athens dominating the sea, Sparta and her Army ruled the land. Generally speaking, in wars of Elephant vs Whale, the elephant has the advantage, as he can learn to swim, but on land a whale is just a beached whale. As the war progressed, Sparta slowly built herself a fleet and got breathing space to do so in the wake of the Athenian debacle at Syracuse in 411 BC. In 405 BC the Athenians met the Spartan Navy at a small island archipelago known as Arginusai. Already the Athenians were dividing their command, but still pulled out a successful victory. The Admirals who led the battle sent out rescue ships to pick up survivors of sunk ships, however, a storm came up and the rescuers were prevented from doing their work. Some of the survivors of downed vessels returned to Athens and sought to bring the Admirals up on charges. They were charged, convicted and executed. But evidence showed that they were innocent of wrongdoing. Yes, there was political correctness in Ancient Athens. And what was the result of it? The very next year the Athenian fleet met the Spartan at a place called Aigospotami and there the Spartans crushed them. Sparta ruled both on land and at sea and the Athenians surrendered. Did the Athenians learn from this result to do away with their PC madness? No, they executed Socrates, their best man, for "corrupting the youth" several years later. Many of the best men of Athens, like Plato and Xenophon, came to realize that the Spartans deserved to win.

Even Sparta had its Liberals. Most are familiar with the movie "300." It wasn't a bad movie, although there were many historical inaccuracies. The traitorous character of Theron, while fictional did have some historical basis. Several Spartan leaders, among them the former King Demaratus, were in Xerxes' camp, helping him. And many Greeks of all cities didn't want to upset the King of Persia, so they favored kow-towing to him and surrendering. This was called "Medizing" and several cities of Greece, including Thebes, Medized. Those who fought at Thermopylai and Plataia and Salamis were accused of many of the same things that those who favor fighting in the War on Terror today are- that they would make the tyrants hate us, that submission to the tyrant wasnt worth going to war over. How different would history have been if we had listened to these Ancient Greek Leftists?

The mighty Republic of Rome had no end to its Leftist demagogues, sadly. In the War with Hannibal the things they accused the Roman leadership of might be exactly word for word what modern Leftists accuse George W Bush of in Iraq. If not for the illiteracy and ignorance of the Antiwar Left, one might think they took a page from Rome's Leftist opposition of 217-216 BC.

Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator (the Delayer) was appointed Dictator (it was Constitutional, Roman Law provided for a six-month Dictatorship in times of emergency) and he tried to erode what little manpower Hannibal had with ambushes, raids on supply lines and other minor skirmishes. This was done because Hannibal could not make good his losses and would run out quick, and also Fabius knew that no Roman General could defeat him. The Roman Left, led by one Gaius Terentius Varro, made the ludicrous claim that this war with Hannibal was easily ended but that the Conservative forces were prolonging it in order to keep the plebians down. It kind of reminds one of the present days, where the Conservative leadership has been saddled with equally ludicrous claims about the War in Iraq. As the Bible says, there is nothing new under the Sun.

At any rate, Varro got himself elected Consul for the year 216 BC. By that time, Hannibal's forces had been depleted by the Fabian tactics and his Spanish mercenaries were plotting to desert to the Romans (which would have rendered his Army combat ineffective). But on August 2, 216 BC Varro led the Roman Army straight into a trap set by Hannibal at a place called Cannae. It was the greatest military disaster perhaps in all Roman history. The more faint-hearted among the Romans talked of fleeing Italy for Illyria in the wake of this battle. The three greatest cities in Italy and Sicily- Capua, Tarentum and Syracuse, all deserted their allegiance to Rome for Hannibal. They all had to be taken back by Rome at great cost in blood to both sides. The great Greek scientist Archimedes was Syracusan and he died as the city was retaken in 212 BC. A war that could have been ended in two to four years dragged on for seventeen taking countless lives, destroying the finest cities of the Western Mediterranean. All because of Leftist demagogy.

Far from showing any shame or restraint after nearly sending the Republic crashing into ruin during the war with Hannibal, Rome's Leftists continued their shennanigans. They brought scurrilous charges against Scipio Africanus, the man who finally did defeat Hannibal. One of their worst demagogues, Publius Clodius Pulcher, armed Rome's previously unarmed street gangs causing a great upsurge of violence in the city. Three years after Clodius' death, another great Roman Leftist, Gaius Iulius Caesar, crossed into Italy with his Army in what can be called nothing so much as a military coup. The Republic ended with Caesar's Dictatorship and the sucessor of his successor's successor was Caligula. Not far behind him was Nero. Caesar was not the equivalent of an oil company baron. Caesar was "the people's champion" as so many of our modern Leftist politicans call themselves.

After the last Republican resistance in the Roman polity, led by Marcus Iunius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus, was crushed in 42 BC, there were not a great number of Republics that followed. The next great Republic would be the Batavian Republic formed in 1560 AD, followed by the Puritan Revolution of 1648. Even that revolution would not be complete until 1688 in the Glorious Revolution. Our Founding Fathers knew a few things that we today do not. One was that the tide of history is not on the side of freedom. God may be, but man is always quick to make a slave out of other men. The Founding Fathers knew that politicians would come along to take our freedoms away in the name of "the people." I don't think they realized how quickly and easily this would be accomplished. I doubt they realized that the Left which they knew would emerge would take the Bill of Rights and twist its words to take people's rights away. They must all certainly be dismayed.

What Barak Hussein Obama and his fellow Leftist thugs are doing is not new. The battle we fight against him and his ilk is one we have been fighting since the Revolutionary War. The Democrats, led by the bi-coastal elites are the successors of the 18th Century unicoastal elite which loved its King and abhorred the rebellion of the "country people" (ie the ancestors of the Mid Westerners, Plains and Mountain state dwellers of today) of the North and the Southern rapscallions, led by their captain George Washington. I'm not sure if it's a comfort to know that they've always been with us, but we have survived them before. George Washington defeated their King's Army. The Romans survived Cannae. We will survive Barak Hussein Obama and his treason. But we must never give up the fight, we must ever raise our voices in opposition to him. We must ensure that the damage he does to this country is minimal.

Not My Messiah

What I have been saying since the 4th is, "I'm glad my father isn't alive to see this." How would a man who fled as a little boy from Stalin take having a stalinist thug for president? The Liberals' Messiah, Barak Hussein Obama, or "B-HO," as the Republic of Utica calls him, has managed to con his way into the White House.

People call this a historic moment- America has elected its first black president. But what they are neglecting is the whole deal about "the content of one's character rather than the color of one's skin" that Martin Luther King talked about. What is the character of this man? He is a millionaire who is constantly lecturing us on giving. But what has he given? Less than one percent of the income he made from 2000-2004 went to charity. Most of this went to the false wolf-in-sheep's clothing Rev Jeremiah Wright. He has a brother in Africa who has never been given a dime of his money. Does anybody really believe that he is going to lift a finger for any of you without a big political payoff? Only the most delusional.

Republicans ran a sorry campaign this year. We can't blame all on the Liberal Media, though they certainly aided in their Messiah's triumph. We're not allowed to discuss B-HO's association with his fellow-traitors Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. We aren't allowed to say his middle name, Hussein. We aren't allowed to discuss his Marxist philosophies. But hey, we're allowed to have a free-for-all on Sarah Palin's wardrobe and family.

Well bollix to all that. The Republic of Utica hereby throws down the gauntlet at the tyrant Barak Hussein Obama. I intend to show B-HO all of the same courtesy that he and his fellow Liberals have shown George W Bush for the past 8 years, with one exception. I will tell the truth and not lie through my teeth, as they love to do.

The last thing America needs right now is a Marxist Dictator. Unfortunately there are many empty-headed individuals out there who will fall for the speeches of a false messiah.

To all you regular Americans out there- don't despair. This isn't the first time that some piece of scum has wooed a bunch of illiterate, uninformed fools to vote for him. This is something that goes back to the very beginning of Republican government when the people first decided they could rule themselves better than a King. There have always been those who would prefer a King and sometimes they win. I shall do a whole separate post on this.

The thing that the Sons of the Republic must do right now is band together and launch oppositions to our "messiah." B-HO has been criticizing like a magpie from a tree for the last 4 years. Now he has to govern and it is only a matter of short time before our "Savior" shows himself to be only a man and a pathetic one at that. All he has to offer is Marxist platitudes. That dog will not hunt.

So what real Americans need to do is put their minds on 2010. Harry Reid is up for re-election and there is a real chance of getting rid of him. Two leaders of Democrats in the Senate in a row to lose re-election would be quite a blow to them. We must organize at the community level and try to bring about another year like 1994. The corrupt Marxist thugs who run the Democratic Party will have given us plenty of fodder by then. Redistricting in 2010 is going to favor Red States more heavily and Blue strongholds are losing folks.

Don't make the mistake we made in 2004 in reverse right now. Back then, we believed that we would be on top forever. Now, some of us may think we'll be on the bottom forever. Neither is true.

And I am proud of Republicans right now. Remember after 2004 psychologists identified P.E.S.T. (post-election selection trauma)? People who voted for the Traitor Kerry were rocking in the fetal position on their couch unable to deal with reality. We are not a bunch of whining crybabys like they are. We will gather together and retake our country back from the Marxist scum.

I hear many a Liberal say after the '04 election "I don't know my country anymore." They NEVER knew this country. If they had the slightest notion, they'd never be Liberals. But we are the true Sons of the Republic and we will take it back. We love Liberty and fifty million people fighting for Liberty against fifty million brain-dead former PEST sufferers who are in love with a false messiah are no match for us. No conest.

As our British cousins used to say, "stiff upper lip!"

The Diplomatic Achievments of George W Bush

The Diplomatic Achievments of George W Bush
Current mood: pugnacious

The oft repeated lie can become truth and the Democratic Party are masters of it. Barak Hussein Obama repeated his Party's most common lie-made-truth-through-repetition at the debate last week- that we need his messianic leadership to restore our supposedly damaged diplomatic position in the world. Democrats say this all the time, but how true is it? Shall we examine facts rather than Leftist rhetoric?

I'd start with Africa, and George W Bush's visit there earlier this year. The women there wore images of his face on their dresses as they danced for him. George W Bush made his AIDS relief program for that continent early in his presidency and the Africans love him for it. Our relations with most of Sub-Saharan Africa are better than they've ever been.

Next let's jet across the Indian Ocean to the Indian Subcontinent. As Bill Clinton's Utopian Presidency drew to a close in January, 2001, it is important to remember that we had economic sanctions against both India and Pakistan, which represent more than a quarter of the world's population. Think on this, Pakistan was a nuclear power, had no trade relations with the US, and was a military dictatorship allied with the Taliban. Pakistan still has a long way to go, but today they are a US ally and have an elected government, a pro-US government elected by Pakistan's people. In the last seven years, they've come far. Likewise relations have been normalized with India and they are considering purchasing our jets for their Air Force. This is unprecedented. India purchases most of its weaponry from Russia, and some from Britain. They've never used US weapons before.

In December, 2003, Libya surrendered a huge cache of WMDs in the wake of our invasion of Iraq. These included chemical weapons and even a nascent nuclear weapons program. They were also working on long-range missiles to deliver these weapons. If the only good that came out of the war in Iraq was this abandonment, it would have been worth it a hundred times over.

Likewise the people of Lebanon rose up and threw out the Syrians in early 2004. It was because freedom was on the rise in the Middle East. Naturally with the return to power of Liberals who hate freedom, the Lebanese have lost their moxy in standing up to tyranny.

The French and the Germans both had pro-American Conservatives win office and throw out old Socialists who like to look down their noses at us. Nicolas Sarkozy delivered an address to Congress praising America to the skies early this year. France elected someone like this in a time when America is "hated"?

In the 2006 election in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, the Conservative President, argued that his Socialist opponent, Romano Prodi, was Anti-American and that he would harm Italy's relations with the US. Prodi fired back saying that he would ensure cordial relations with the US. Italy is so mad at America that its electorate needs to be reassured that its president won't anger the US? That is a contradiction.

Liberals cite massive antiwar demonstrations in Europe as proof that Europe is angry at America because of George W Bush. But it is important to remember that in every Western NATO country (and neutral as well) there was ten or more percent of the population that wanted the USSR to win the Cold War and build a Communist Europe. Thirty years ago both West Germany and Italy had Red Brigades active commiting acts of terrorism. In December, 1981 Italian Reds kidnapped an American General and held him for over a month in Fair Verona. The Christian Democrat Coalition defeated the Communist Party Coalition in the 1976 Italian elections by a margin of 37%-34%.

At the big Antiwar rally in Milan, the Red Banners of Socialism flew proudly, and many demonstrators carried pictures of Joseph Stalin. It's obvious where these peoples' allegiance lies. Nothing America will do, other than surrender control of our country to the Communist Party, will please these people. So why bother trying?

In Mexico's 2006 election a similar incident to what happened in Italy occured. Conservative Felipe Calderon claimed that Leftist Manuel Obrador would be another Hugo Chavez and would strain Mexico's relations with America. Obrador forcefully responded that this was not true, that he would make a favorable enviroment for trade with the US. Even people slightly to the Left of center in Mexico don't want an America Hater running their country.

Speaking of Hugo Chavez, he was giving one of his usual bombastic Castroesque speeches in a Ibero-American summit late in 2007. After a tirade of false accusations, the Spanish King Juan Carlos I, interjected and said, "why don't you just shut up?" From Tijuana to Tierra del Fuego to Tarragon, Spanish speaking people put the monarch's quip as a ring-tone for their cell-phones. This is hardly an indication of sympathy with Chavez's views of America and Bush.

Bush gathered together China, Japan, South Korea and Russia to deal with a Clinton boondoggle, North Korea's nuclear ambitions. We've gotten North Korea to abandon nukes, for now. Bush cleaned up after Clinton here, not vice-versa.

Our relations with Russia are somewhat strained at the moment. Is this Bush's fault? I hardly think Russia's desire to reclaim an empire it had before his father was born is his fault. What's more, Russia's recent invasion of Georgia, and chewing off a piece of it, was modeled on America's intervention in Serbia and chewing off Kossovo from it. Serbia is Russia's traditional sphere-of-influence for the past 200 years. Russia became involved in World War I to protect Serbia. And when did we do the Kossovo campaign? In 1999, during Clinton's paradisical presidency.

So where has Bush damaged America's credibility? The short answer is, he has not. Clinton went into a country unilaterally without French or German approval- Bosnia. Naturally the media doesn't spin it as something that damaged our credibility. Sheryl Crowe, Antiwar pinhead, went to sing in Bosnia. Truthfully, many of our relations today are a lot more stable and sturdy than were ten years ago.

Yes, China and Russia, both of whom have Imperial ambitions, would prefer to have a weakling like Obama running our country. Does that mean we should be subservient and elect him?

GOP, the True Party of the Woman

The venomous slurs against Sarah Palin by the DNC vipers are par for the course in their way of doing business. But, being a History Major, watching the Feminazis like Anna Quindlen and Gloria Steinem criticize her femininity, I am compelled to speak out. These burn-the-bra types sit in their Starbuck's drying their petticured toenails and criticize a working mother of five who is the chief executive of her state. And they act like THEY are the real women and SHE isn't? Oh Hell No, says the Republic of Utica.
Obama's latest slur is the lipstick on a pig comment, comparing this woman to a sow. And the South Carolina Democratic Party says Palin's only qualification is that she hasn't had an abortion. Yeah, and it's too bad that the mother of whoever said that didn't have one.
A History lesson is in order here. What the Quindlens and Steinems are ignorant of, or know but neglect to mention, is that traditionally the Womens' Movement has been Conservative Republican. Contrary to Liberal spiel, the GOP has always been the right-of-center party and the Democrats the left-of-center. Abraham Lincoln was elected by a coalition of the religious right, free market entrepreneurs and pro-military/veterans from outside the major urban areas, much the same as George W Bush was. New England used to be the Bible Belt back in the day.
Bearing this in mind, it is important to point out that Susan B Anthony was a Conservative Republican. It's funny the way modern Pro-Abortion, Anti-American Liberal Feminists invoke her name. No doubt she turned over in her grave each time. And it's amazing that she didn't burst forth from her crypt when the modern day so-called womens' movement would destroy the lives of women like Paula Jones, Juanita Broadderick and Linda Tripp to protect a Left Wing molester-lecher (no, men aren't called sluts, they are called lechers) like Bill Clinton.
Suffragettes like Susan B Anthony formed temperance leagues dedicated to what Liberals today would call "imposing Christian morals." They shut down saloons and brothels in their communities. They were among the most Conservative of voting blocs.
The early successes of the suffragette movement at the state level all came in ruby red states. The first was Dick Cheney's home state of Wyoming in 1869 when it was still a territory. They were followed by Utah, Colorado, Idaho and Montana. The first woman in Congress, Jeanette Rankin, was a Republican contemporary of Herbert Hoover. She came from Montana.
The opposition to womens' suffrage in those days came from liquor interests (vice interests) and from machine politicians (ie Liberals).
It is women like Sarah Palin, tough pioneering women from Middle America, who are the real, traditional leaders of women in America and they made life better for ALL Americans. Powderpuffs like Anna Quindlen have done nothing but open abortion clinics, places where you'll never see a real woman like Sarah Palin.
It is one of the greatest cons in history that Liberal Democrats are able to say that you must hate women if you don't fall into lockstep with them. It's right up there with that Democratic Party, the historical champion of slavery and Jim Crow, which had the KKK as an arm of its Party, being able to say that you are racist if you don't fall into lockstep with them.

McCain

McCain
Current mood: determined

So it's John McCain. OK.

The Republic of Utica will support John McCain and here's why-

I am NOT just thinking that someone with an "R" after my name be good and "D" be bad. That WOULD be dopey.

But, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, though I adore you both, it's equally dopey to say there isn't any difference between Hillary and McCain.

Let us remember the history of both McCain and Hillary, where each came from. Hillary came from that radical culture of the '60s that wanted to "bring the war home and kill our parents." In 1969, when the Manson Family killed Sharon Tate, a woman eight months pregnant, the SDS, a radical group that Hillary had some ties with, made guerilla theater celebrating this act, right down one of the women sticking her fork in Tate's pregnant belly and saying to Charlie, "look what I did for you." The SDS gave a three fingered "fork salute" to each other in remembrance of this act. The reason hippies like Hillary so loved Charles Manson was his violence in murdering of two middle class everyday American families. They dreamed of doing likewise on a grand scale.

Compare this with McCain, an honorably serving Navy Pilot who was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. Pilots like McCain shot down early in the war were told of the acts of traitors like Hillary and John Kerry by the North Vietnamese (John McCain as a POW was treated to John Kerry's perjured, high-nasal "fashion reminiscent of Jhenjis Khan" speech) but they did not believe that Americans would act this way. They thought the North Vietnamese were making it up! How disappointing it must have been for them in 1973 to have discovered otherwise!

The three pillars of Reagan Conservatism are strong defense, Fiscal Conservatism and Social Conservatism. In the first John McCain gets 100%, A+. Of any candidate of either Party, he is, in fact, the best candidate for Commander-in-Chief of our military that we have running. After four years of being led by John McCain, we can reasonably expect our military to be strong and have high morale. They will be well taken care of. As veteran of the Clinton-era military, I remember how low morale was under the Slick One. We were short-handed and sick of being run by Political Correctness. As Commander-in-Chief, Hillary would make Bill look like Reagan. Her hatred for our soldiers runs very deep, and we can count on our military being in a complete shambles after four years of her.

Let us also remember that John McCain saved the day in Iraq. If not for him and Joe Lieberman, the al Qaeda Caliphate would be running Iraq right now courtesy of the Democratic Party. They came that close to selling our soldiers and our country down the river AGAIN, just like Vietnam. McCain stood in the gap for America against the Democrats.

For these actions McCain deserves our respect. If a Republican feels in principle that he or she cannot support McCain then let them do so respectfully and not with some of the insults I've seen. That's just plain wrong.

Yes, McCain on several matters of of Fiscal and Social Conservatism has been lacking. I do not propose that we forget this or turn a blind eye to it. However, right now McCain is openly courting us Conservatives. What I do propose is that, rather than ignore him, we answer him. We tell him that we are hearing his high sounding promises that he is making right now, and that we will hold him to them.

Remember the amnesty bill that was defeated? We promise to mke life uncomfortable for him like that if he forgets the promises he is making to Conservatives right now. We should be saying that we will hold him to every sweet promise he makes to us.

People have been calling McCain a traitor to the Republican Party. Well, he has had ample opportunity to royally screw the GOP and has never done so. I have been hearing people cite the rumor that McCain was wanted for Kerry's VP vandidate in 2004. This was a rumor. Let us remember that he campained for Bush that year, I attended a Bush rally and heard him speak at it. He never defected from a 50-50 Senate.

We can look at the glass as half empty or half full, people. Conservatives really do have an opportunity with John McCain. He needs us. And we do need him right now. He is the only one reaching out to us. Will we pout like children? Or will we go to the man and have our say?

John McCain has been on the side of freedom in the war against Asiatic tyranny that we now find ourselves in. Hillary, who no doubt had a Ho Chi Minh poster back in the '60s, has consistently been on the other side. It is prideful foolishness to say there is no difference between Hillary and McCain. McCain, for all that he has been misguided at times, is a patriot who loves this country. Who among us has given more than him for America? The choice is clear for Conservatives- we support McCain, we tell him also that if he forgets his promises to us when he is president that we will remind him in loud voices.

Don’t Let Liberals John Kerry America!

Current mood: betrayed

Alright, people, how many of you out there are just plan sick of John Kerry's supposed victimhood? I know I'm about get silly on somebody. I know I am very tired of hearing the multitude of Liberal pundits, the combined value of whom doesn't equal a pimple on the ass of the least of the Swift Boat Veterans talking about "swift-boating." Most of you reading this are all too familiar with the Leftist's gift for making himself or herself out to be the victim. But Liberal caterwauling about John Kerry's "victimhood" is over the top even for them. Just when you think the sewer of Liberalism cannot disgorge anything more vile, they prove you wrong.

Benedict Arnold Kerry gave perjured testimony before Congress about our soldiers in his famous "fashion reminiscent of Jhengis Khan" nasal Yankee-brahmin diatribe. In what must have been one of his worst tortures in the Hanoi Hilton, John McCain was forced to listen to this speech. He and most of the pilots shot down early in the war believed that this was North Vietnamese Propaganda, no American would disgrace himself by crapping such lies out his mouth. I can't imagine the disappointment of pilots shot down in '64, '65, '66 and '67 when they came home to find that the North Vietnamese didn't have to make some of their propaganda up.

Kerry's lies gave the Stalinist Regime of Hanoi more undeserved moral high ground that had been building since the 1967 declaration of the Counterculture. Kerry proudly marched behind Viet-Cong flags and met with representatives of North Vietnam while still technically a naval reservist. He assisted a Stalinist Regime that ran "re-education camps" reminiscent of Dachau and a Maoist Regime that massacred a third of its country's population. And he has never shown an ounce of shame or remorse for his betrayals. On the contrary he wears them like a badge of honor, speaking with great pride in his treason.

By any objective standard John Kerry should have been given a firing squad and dumped in a dung-heap, and that still would have been too good for him.

But what happened instead? Kerry spent the last thirty-five years in mansions, hobnobing with his fellow Boston brahmins, looking down their royal noses at those of us who live between the Sierra Nevada and the Delaware River. This betrayer, this fratricidal maniac, has lived the high life of a Congressman and Senator, married a billionaire and dwelled in high mansions. And his fellow veterans, the loyal Americans who fought the war and DIDN'T betray their country? Their reward was often living under bridges and being spat at in the face. Parents of dead loyal veterans were often treated to crank-calls from smelly hippies saying how glad they were that their soldier son was killed by the heroic People's Army of (North) Vietnam.

So the next idiot who in my hearing whines about what a victim John Kerry is, he's gonna have blisters on his ears. I say we enter a new phrase into the American lexicon. In honor of Benedict Arnold Kerry, luckiest scumbag traitor to ever duck a well-deserved firing squad, I say that whenever we have a lying scumbag trying to slander America or its people, we need to respond, "don't try to John Kerry America!" "Don't John Kerry that man!" "You know you really oughtta not John Kerry that girl by making up stories about her!"

John Kerry has escaped the hand of justice, but we can at least let him know that we remember who he is and that he should give thanks he hasn't gotten what he deserves.

Reid to Soldiers: Let Them Eat Cake

Current mood: enraged

The Republic of Utica is officially handing out its second Marie Antoinette award. It's first and all time Queen would be Ariana Huffington, whose blog shows a great detachment from reality at a time when lives are in jeopardy. You Libs out there contemplating your navels in your ivory towers, get set, you have a new Queen- Harry Reid.

Liberals love to claim that they care about soldiers, just ask them. If you ask some hippie from the '60s why he helped bring about Killing Fields that were filled with nearly two million souls, he will claim that he cared about our soldiers not wanting to get killed. He won't tell you about the times he spat in the faces of soldiers, calling them "baby killer" or about the times he spent crank calling the fathers and mothers of dead soldiers saying how glad they were that the heroic People's Liberation Army of (North) Vietnam had killed their son. Do we see now how specious their claim is?

Equally stanky is Harry Reid's bogus claim that he cares so much about our American soldiers. He cares about them so much that he is willing to pull the rug out from under their feet at the time when we are at a crucial stage in the war. The surge is working, casualties among American soldiers and Iraqi civilians both have dropped to fractions of what they were a few months ago. So what does Harry Reid do? He leads an effort to defund the war altogether. He is throwing a temper tantrum because he hasn't got his way.

If Reid were a loyal American, he would want victory in Iraq, but his recent actions, of bending over backwards trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, show that he is anything but.

When requested for financial help that our soldiers need, Queen Harry, who never served a day in his life, has told our soldiers that they can eat cake from the safety of his DC suburb. Now our soldiers in Iraq will face greater, totally unnecessary, perils as civilian support personnel are laid off and vital training missions that keep soldiers alive in combat are cancelled. thanks so much, Queen Harry, with "loyal" Americans like you, who needs backstabbing fifth columnists? For this you are hereby crowned the second Queen Marie Antoinette. Eat your own cake!

Bill Maher, Supreme Idiot

Current mood: nauseated

With so much that is good out there to watch, read and listen to, I don't have much time for crap. That coupled with my temper and an ultra-sensitive BS Detecter and I really don't have any inclination for it. I'm trying to learn Godly patience, but I don't suffer fools gladly. Enter Bill Maher.

"Methinks ye dost protest too much," is the quote that runs through my mind as I look over his website seeing all the assertions of how "honest" Bill Maher is. Who's he trying to convince, us or himself? Whenever he opens his mouth, he firmly convinces me of the opposite.

People tell me to ignore folks like Maher who have mouths much bigger than their brains. But I'm sure people said to ignore that idiot Hitler and that idiot Stalin in their youth. The problem is, sometimes people believe idiots. And when that happens millions of people die. There was a journalist of Bill Maher's caliber covering Joseph Stalin in 1932 named Walter Duranty. He fed us a cock-and-bull story about the beauty of his workers' paradise. At that time, millions of Ukrainians were being deliberately starved to death, with Duranty's knowledge. He got the Pulitzer Prize and it stands to this day. Because of him and other Bill Maher types like him, we believed that Stalin was a Great Humanitarian.

When we listened to the Bill Mahers of the world back in the 1970s, we withdrew from Indochina and precipitated the greatest humanitarian crisis between 1945 and today. Two million Cambodians, a third of Cambodia's 1975 population, were slaughtered. Millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians fled to the high seas in leaky sampans with the clothes on their backs. I remember this, tho I was barely out of my infancy at the time. My father, a Conservative Republican, brought home a family of these people to live with us until they could be established on their own. I never have known a Liberal Democrat who did anything like that. and I've known plenty of Liberal democrats.

My grandparents also, fled from their native Lithuania to escpe Stalin's tyranny. So these two subjects are very close to my heart and something I know a lot about.

Anyways, I flipped over to Bill Maher's show. It would really be nice of HBO to show us more movies (it is, after all, a movie channel) and fewer soap operas and episodes of Bill Maher's ignoramous commentary.

It was obviously a rerun, he was speaking of the French elections, wherein Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy defeated Socialist Segoline Royale, as not having happened yet.

In the typical snarky manner of Liberals, Maher looked down his royal nose at Americans, calling us a nation of 6-year-olds and expounded at length on French Superiority. The hatred Maher feels for Americans broke through his plastic mask of "patriotic dissenter" that he manages to wear over his plastic face.

He said that France had the best health care and was the most prosperous country in the industrialized world. Laughable. Their health care system is falling apart, as all of them are, and wealthy French come to America to be treated. No wealthy Americans go to France.

I visited France in 1982 and 2000. I can tell you that there are plenty of people sleeping on the streets of this workers' paradise and many more panhandlers besides.

He said it was wonderful that a Socialist woman who had four children out of wedlock by different men could be a serious candidate for president. How terribly square of us that we only sometimes vote for Socialists who call themselves Democrats.

In his view it was also great that they had nude beaches. then he says immediately afterwards that private life remains private in France. Wait a minute, Bill, how private is a nude beach?

Naturally he neglected to mention the riots there, first by the immigrants, then by the young men who think that companies shouldnt be able to fire them for not working. Oh yeah, that's a law in France. Once you reach a certain age, you can't be fired by your employer. You know that must make for great quality goods and services. They rioted in France over a proposal to raise the age at which you could be fired.

Maher thought it was great that people dont talk much about Jesus over there, but doesnt mention the people that talk about Mohammed. Or the people who talk about Moses who were advised by their religious head not to wear their yarmulkas in public for fear they may be assaulted by the aforementioned people who talk about Mohammed.

Still, I wont look for Bill Maher to leave us immature Americans to go reside among the Enlightened French where he can work to a truly European standard of putting his gigantic vulture nose in the air and looking down it at us Americans. Too bad, maybe the Sorbonne would give him a scholarship.

No look to Maher to invoke freedom he doesnt believe in to annoy people he hates (that being us Americans).

It was obvious Bill maher knows nothing about either France or America. But it doesnt stop him from flying off at the mouth about both of them.

Many of you will say, "but Matt, he is just an idiot who calls other people idiots in an act of transferrence. Yes. Bill Maher is naught but a bag of flatulence endlessly bursting forth with his vapors. But that's the problem. History teaches us that idiots are often listened to if they are not stood up to. Bill Maher has no contact information on his website. Big surprise. He doesnt speak for as many of the people as he claims to. But that can change. Hitler and Stalin were just little idiots in a big world once. But they got to fight a world war against each other with millions dead on both sides. Do not underestimate a little idiot and his rantings. Just because he's stupid doesnt mean people wont buy his snake oil.

GOP’s Katrina Vindication

Current mood: accomplished
Category: News and Politics

On Saturday Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La) was elected governor of Lousiana. He is replacing Kathleen Blanco (D) who oversaw the running of her state during Hurricane Katrina Vandenheuvel. Blanco, showing shame so uncharacteristic of Democrats, had the good grace not even to run for re-election.

For those of you not familiar with how things work in Louisiana, they have an open primary system. Every candidate of every Party runs on a single Primary day. The two top vote-getters, whatever their Party, fight it out in a runoff a little over two weeks later. However, if, in the Primary, the top vote getter wins more than 50% of the votes, he is declared winner outright, no runoff necessary. This rarely happens in governor's races. But it did happen for Bobby Jindal last Saturday.

I remember hearing of Jindal's Congressional victory in 2004, where he came to Represent Louisiana US District 1. The first time I saw a picture of him was in the House of Representatives holding up his purple stained finger celebrating the Iraqi elections. A picture is worth a thousand words, and I saw that the man had passion.

The Liberal Media has played the template that the disaster of Hurricane Katrina was the Republican Party's fault, mostly George Bush (he caused the hurricane by causing Global Warming, he ordered the levees right by black neighborhoods blown up and then didnt send them any aid or help when they were flooded out). One lie was that Bush didnt prepare for a hurricane that could have blown out the levees in New Orleans. I got news for you, people. I lived in New Orleans from 1985 to 1987 when I was a kid. I first came to the Crescent City in 1985 and I heard many people telling me back then that if the city were hit directly by a Cat 5 Hurricane that the levees might burst, as they in fact did in 2005. And I'm sure they didnt just realize that the day before I came there. This is something that has been a long time in coming, and nobody prepared for it.

Another thing we need to remember is that we live in a Federal System of government. That means that our individual states and locales are autonomous and the federal Government may not step into them without their consent/appeal. In other words, the state governments are responsible for such things, and the Federal Government is auxiliary. Not vice-versa. Moscow is not our capital, though it seems like it sometimes.

Well, it seems that the voters of Louisiana know truly where the fault lies. With her popularity in the basement, Democratic Governor Kathleen Blanco did not seek re-election. Bobby Jindal sought to be elected, having tried to win the election back in 2003 but losing in the runoff to Blanco.

The Democratic smear machine sought to link Jindal and President Bush, and truly Jindal is a supporter of many of Bush's policies. But it didnt seem to work for them. Jindal got more than 50% of the votes in a Primary against all Democrats and some Republicans.

The voters know that it was the corrupt, inept Democrat government that made the ravages Post-Katrina worse than they had to be. Katrina was not Bush's fault. The flooded school buses have become a symbol of local Democrat incompetance in New Orleans and the rest of Southern Louisiana.

Next door in Mississippi, Republican Governor Haley Barbour is beloved for how he handled the devastation after Hurricane Katrina Vandenheuvel. The Democrats are running a sacrificial lamb against him in the governor's election in two weeks.

The voters know, People. In spite of the Liberal Media and DNC smear machine, Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath weren't the fault of Republicans. And that is why Democratic Party is taking it on the labanza in Mississippi and Louisiana.

Congratualations Bobby Jindal, and Haley Barbour, keep giving 'em Hell!

Amateur Hour at the DNC or Why I’m Optimistic About 2008

Amateur Hour at the DNC or Why I’m Optimistic About 2008
Current mood: amused

I doubt that the GOP will take back the Senate in 2008, too many retirements, too many vulnerable seats to defend versus few defenses for the Democrats. But retaining the White House and getting the House of Representatives back are good possiblities.

The reason? It's quite simple, there are no presidents among the Democrats. True, there havent been for decades and that hasnt prevented a couple of them from getting elected. Nonetheless, it's worse today.

Hillary is portrayed by Democrats and the Liberal Media as our inevitable next President. Please. She's a neophyte Senator, no executive experience, nor deserving the chance to aquire any. SHE HAS NEVER RUN ANYTHING. Except possibly a couple of hippie protests to help Ho Chi Minh's war effort against America back in the '60s.

It is somewhat disconcerting that she isnt laughed at by 98% of America's population when she says she wants to be President. I mean, in 1992 we elected Governor Lapetomaine from "Blazing Saddles" to the Presidency and now some want his wife?

Well, that's alright. She's a bit of a novelty right now, but as Republicans coalesce behind their candidate, her lacking record will come out. I am good friends at FSU with a man who is my political opposite. Me, a Northern born Republican who loves the South, him a Southern born Democrat more into the ways of the North. We rode home together in his car one day in 2005 and he still had his Kerry/Edwards bumber sticker on. HE said to me as we got in the car "dont ever run Senators for President." It is somewhat axiomatic of politics that you dont run Senators. The only Senator to be President was John F Kennedy, and if the stories are true that dead people gave him victory in Illinois and Texas in 1960, then NO Senator has fairly won the Presidency.

And, as Senators go, Hillary is not distinguished among them. At least John Kerry had thirty years in Congress. Hillary has six. And they are not a very distinguished six either. Recently Hillary ran an ad showing herself at Ground Zero after 9-11 with a face mask. Let's have the GOP show her at the fundraiser for families of firefighters late in 2001 where she was booed off the stage. She did one right thing back then- she voted for the War on Terror. Of course that was a 100-0 vote in the Senate, so, again, she did not distinguish herself.

Hillary with her socialist medical system ideas gave Republicans the Congress back in 1994. Let's see what other politcally correct ideas she wants to foist on us. She has been back and forth on Iraq, and if you thought the GOP had fun calling Kerry a flip-flopper, Hillary is going to get it twice as bad, and deservedly so.

Make no mistake, the GOP wouldnt slander or smear her. It wont have to. Just state the record. She'll crack. In the 2000 Senatorial election she got victim points because Rick Lazio confronted her. Well, if we confront her today, and she tries to make a victim of herself, as Democrats always do, undeservedly, that will hurt her in a Presidential campaign. Nobody is going to elect a victim for President. Victimhood is not Presidential. So Hillary can't play that and hope to win.

Many women will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. Some men will deliberately not vote for her just because she is a woman. And there are even a few women out there who will not vote for a woman. Should a woman be President? Well, when one steps forward who is fit to be, I'll support her. Hasn't happened yet. Margaret Thatcher was a great PM of Britain. The best since Churchill. If someone like that ran for President in the US, she'd win and deservedly so. But Hillary is just a weak victim. Who needs that for President?

Not only that, Hillary has high 40's% unfavorable ratings. You cant get elected president if 49% of America doesn't like you. And, as it has been pointed out, Hillary's unlikeables have been formed by adult Americans over the course of nearly a generation. We've known her since 1991. She's not going to change our minds with a few tv spots.

Is Hillary inevitable? No way. I don't give her a snowball's chance. And more good news on this? She is the best the Demos have. Barak Obama is a neophyte Senator with even less experience or anything accomplished than her. He has not yet been a Senator for three years. He will be hammered even more eaily than Hillary is. Mr Madrasa isn't going to get more support than Hillary, he will get less. And forget about John "The Breck Girl" Edwards in third place. Hillary is more of a man than this Senator, who could not as VP candidate carry one single state in his Southern Region for John Kerry in 2004.

No. The GOP candidates are not the best we've ever fielded, but we have some good leaders, all but one of whom have had executive experience and done very well against great challenges. The voters will have a real choice versus their pick of amateurs. The Democrats are not going to get the White House in 2008. And in 2012 the census will greatly favor the Republicans, and I feel that in that year, the GOP will have both the Senate and House after the election, as well as the Presidency.

We have a good chance of getting the House in 2008. In 61 districts, Hillary is expected to be a drag the Democratic Rep candidate. Neither Obama nor Edwards will be a help to these either, rest assured.

So, my prediction is this- Democrat thugs hang on to the Senate, but the GOP retains the White House and wins back the House in a stunning upset.

Hang in there, 2012 is coming.

Liberal PC Thought Police To Pursue Limbaugh

Well, it's just come out over the wire that Rep. Henry "Nostrilitis" Waxman (Bolshevik- Ca), instead of launching another of his endless potemkin investigations at taxpayer expense, has something more sinister in mind. He has ordered his staff to monitor Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin and compile reports of what they have to say on the air.

Well. I thought Democrats were opposed to government monitoring its citizens, especially if they are contacting al Qaeda? We can't run down Islamofascists who want to make a piece of America glow in the dark, but we can monitor those "Right Wing Extremists."

"Limbaugh isn't the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio," a House Leadership source says. Watch out all you people out there who don't observe the strictures of Political Correctness in every particular! Big Brother is watching you!

Liberalism is closet Socialism and in earlier days it had a long, long love affair with the Soviet Union. I went to school in Massachusetts from 1985 to 1987 and the Liberals there admired the USSR. I'm quite sure after it went to its well-deserved place on the ash-heap of history a few years later, they must have been heartbroken. Since the heady days of the 1917 Revolution, Leftist Americans have ever sought to emulate the Soviets and have tried to implement their policies here. "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere in the US Constitution, but is a mainstay of the Soviet.

So, are we really surprised to find Leftist leaders monitoring patriotic Americans like Orwell's Thought Police? I know I'm not. As I stated in an earlier blog piece, our faith, beliefs and love of country scare Liberals who, effectively, believe in nothing beyond their own noses. Only a strong and agressive Conservative Movement will prevent the Waxmans of the world from establishing a Gestapo to stamp out Thoughtcrime.

Liberals' Budding Love Affair With Iran

Liberals love tyrants. This I have observed from my youth. I remember one of my Liberal teachers defended Khaddafi when we responded to his terror attacks by bombing across the Line of Death back in 1986. At the same school they showed us a propaganda film saying that Reagan had stopped sending food to Ethiopia because he hated Black people and wanted to let them starve. The film didnt mention that Ethiopia's Marxist government had been taking food that we sent them FOR FREE and shipping it to the USSR in exchange for weapons. At the time I was greatly astounded that my Liberal professors were not interested in learning the facts.

In the '70s and '80s Liberals adored Fidel Castro. Many violated American law and went to visit him and spend our American dollars to keep his economy afloat. They lambasted Pinochet ruthlessly, but the greatest tyrant of the Western Hemisphere, Fidel, they adored, even though Pinochet wasnt guilty of a fraction of Castro's atrocities.

Liberals loved Daniel Ortega, the Communist President of Nicaragua (recently elected fairly for the first time in his life, mainly by young Nicaragua voters who know only the mytique, but not the crushing reality, of life under Communism). He came to power by force in 1979, silenced all political opposition, and had a sham election in 1984 not unlike Saddam's old elections. He did not hold another election until after the Berlin Wall fell, after which he promptly lost and couldnt elect a dogcatcher for nearly a generation. In the '80s Liberals defended this man in ways they'd never stick up for any American. They called Reagan an old Nazi tyrant, but Ortega was their shining prince.

Liberals loved Gorbachev, he was more popular than Reagan to them. I remember seeing in "The Nation" magazine in 1988 a cartoon that showed a Soviet soldier in Afghanistan flying a kite shaped like a dove of peace, while an Afghan freedom fighter was manning a Flak gun stamped "Made in the USA" was about to shoot it up. How were we Conservatives so stupid as to not realize that Soviet helicopters in Afghanistan in the '80s were there to spread peace, love and red rays of sunshine?

Going back in the history books, I've learned how Liberals loved Joseph Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Kim il-Sung, and others. They formed "peace" movements to aid these bloody tyrants and to stymie American efforts to resist them.

And we are all well aware of Liberal efforts to give aid and comfort to al Qaeda in Iraq.

Now a new enemy has stepped forward for Liberals to coddle. Mahmoud Ahemdinejad, madman President of Iran, who is seeking nuclear weapons, the only leader besides Kim Jong-il who actually WANTS to start a nuclear war, has now drawn the loving attention of America's Left.

I first saw it on a bumper sticker some grungy hippies had on their VW van "US hands off Iran." Then I saw a couple other grungy types with similar statements over the past couple years, but never believed anything serious was afoot on this front until recently.

Jon Soltz, Plastic Posterboy Veteran for the Left, who claims to be nonpartisan, but has his websites filled with Demorat propaganda and who claims to speak for a majority of soldiers but really only speaks for a small minority, has a blog piece on his website filled with the usual Left Wing blather-paranoia that the US is creeping up on some innocent country. The innocent country in this case being poor picked on Iran. He is buddies with "STOPIRANWARNOW.ORG" this group claims to have 55,000 or so co-signers.

Further investigation leads to Wesley Clark's webpage. He also, in addition to giving aid and comfort to al Qaeda in Iraq, also excoriates Bush for wanting to take out Iran. How a disgraceful pig like Clark got to be a General is beyond me. My theory is that, as anyone who served knows, there are those ass-kissing backstabbers we always encounter. Clark must have been a wildly successful one. Now his long knives are in the back of the country itself. I am so glad I never had to serve under that pimp.

Clark is giving advance aid and comfort to Ahmedinejad. I remember seeing in a History Channel show, they interviewed one of the 1979 hostage takers from our embassy in Tehran. He was saying that "we thought the American people would understand." He elaborated that by citing the existence of "peace" movements from Vietnam and earlier made them expect a similar movement to arise on their behalf. They did not expect America to unite under Ronald Reagan.

This is important to realize. America's enemies now, when they strategize, come to count on our Leftists to assist them in the coming battles. And it is rare that they are disappointed. Liberals blame Bush for the dead in Iraq, but I blame only two sources- al Qaeda and Liberals. The former did the deeds. The latter made 'al-Masri's boys believe that they can win if they hang in there. They would have given up long ago if they didnt have the hope of Leftists forcing us to withdraw to cling to.

Now Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, someone seeking nuclear weapons, the destruction of Israel and America, and the reign of Iranian mullahs over the Middle East, knows he can count on some segments of America to help him. Used to be, Liberal "peace" movements would blunt US policy and then Liberals would go back to their coffeehouses, drink their $10 lattes and the filled mass graves wouldnt affect them any. But if a nuclear bomb goes off in the US, I'm afraid for Liberals that starbuck's will be closed in that area and they'll have to miss the episodes of Sex and the City that night.

Rush Limbaugh versus Benedict Arnold Reid and Phony Veterans

Good for Rush Limbaugh!

It's about thirty-five years overdue for someone to stand up to the Left and its Legions of phony veterans. The truth of the matter is that there are never enough poster boy veterans who betray their fellow veterans for Liberal politicians in their efforts to sabotage America's wars.

So what is the solution? Invent some veterans. This is not new. Much of our misbegotten perceptions of Vietnam Veterans as soldiers "reminiscent of Jhengis Khan" come from John Kerry's perjured Senate testimony and the "Winter Soldier" group. These supposed veterans told fantastic tales of American atrocities which have stuck in our collective memory. It turned out that most of these guys had never even worn the uniform. But there was no big investigation, no castigation of the traitor John Kerry for his stinking lies. No, on the contrary, he has lived in opulence since betraying his country, while loyal veterans lived under bridges.

Jesse McBeth has carried on the tradition. A Basic Training washout, he has claimed to be an Army Ranger and has told similar lies against soldiers. His lies have been translated into Arabic and circulated throughout the Arab World. Only a blithering idiot would deny that this endangers American lives. Not to mention America's honor as a nation.

Liberal Poster Boy Veterans like John Kerry and Phony Liberal Veterans are the most contemptable type of scum. For profit they betray their country and never seem to get called on it.

Thugocrat leader Harry Reid has condemned Rush Limbaugh for speaking out on this truth. Nothing Liberals hate more than having one of their shams exposed.

From us real veterans to you, Harry Reid, RESIGN, you anti-American douchebag!! You don't have jack to say to a true American like Rush Limbaugh! You lied to your voters and betrayed your state and your nation. Go get bent!

A 9-11 Message

9-11, The 300, Medizers and Useful Idiots

As the anniversary of 9-11 approaches there is much for Americans to consider. It has been six years since the ugly, cowardly attacks on our nation and I must pointedly ask, what have we learned? To my sadness, the answer must be nothing. Yes, we pursue al Qaeda in Iraq and, not that you hear it ever from the Liberal Media, they are taking heavy, horrendous casualties there. Afghanistan too. The supporters of the war are people who were aware before 9-11, who knew how precious American freedom is and that there are many who want to take it away. Those who oppose the war have returned like a dog to its own vomit, supporting every enemy of America since Stalin. And the great masses who know neither victory nor defeat, neither Conservatism nor Liberalism have gone back to their dream world. Liberals hated the immediate post-9-11 period because it was a Real World scenario. Their political correctness and social experiments were seen for the useless excrement that they are. The day after 9-11, who needed a Feminist, an ACLU lawyer, a tree hugger or a “Peace” Activist? Liberal Ivory Towers had come crashing down and they were scrambling to keep up with the rest of us who already dwelt where things are real.

But now the Liberal Media and DNC Activists have succeeded in singing most of the American people back to sleep. I remember the days immediately following the WTC attacks they talked about how our world was changed forever. But how are things today different from ten years ago? Nothing of significance. Liberals are walking tall again, once more acting like they have something to be proud of. They manage to say with a straight face that it is patriotism on there part to help al Qaeda bring about genocide and tyranny in Iraq.

My mentor Alfredo comforted me once by saying that “even George Washington had to deal with malakas.” (Malaka is an off-color Greek word which is my affectionate term for Liberal Democrats) And it is true. A third of America in his day was Loyalist to their King, a third were American Patriots and a third didn’t know exactly what it was they wanted. Similar to today, although the 1/3 Loyalists have shrunk to be 20% Liberals. The American soldiery in the Revolution came from the South and the Northern countryside. The Loyalists were mainly in the Big Urban centers. The New England Patriots of Concord and Lexington are the ancestors of those who settled in places like Montana, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska and Kansas. Today is the same as 1776- in the “Flyover Country” we are Americans wanted to live with a free, strong and independent America, while the Liberals in the big urban areas are still seeking their King George to bow down to, today in the person of the UN Sec’y General, the President of France (before they went and elected a Conservative who admires America, that is) and other Eurasian Leftists. In previous years they sought to emulate the likes of Stalin and Ho Chi Minh. The struggle of Conservative vs. Liberal is truly a continuation of the Revolutionary War, with Liberals as the Loyalists.

But malakas go back even further. I have just got done watching my “300” DVD. Even the Spartan Leonidas had to deal with them back in 480 BC. Now “300” is not the most accurate rendition of the Battle of Thermopylai. The Ephors were not inbred monsters, and all Spartans, not just them, believed fervently in the old gods of Greece. Spartans were well known as the most pious of the Greeks. But it was good that they showed how some Greeks conspired to help Xerxes conquer their homeland. Many of the Ancient Greeks like the Macedonians and the city of Thebes, submitted to the King of Persia. These were called “Medizers.” Rather than fight with the Spartans to defend their freedom, they bent the knee to the King of Asia. Even a few Spartans, namely the deposed King Demaratus, were in Xerxes’ retinue. The Free Greeks had to overcome not only the combined armies of the Persian Empire, but also the Medizers in their midst. Yes, Ancient Greece had Liberals.

Why do some free people turn against their societies and support the worst of tyrants? Even the tyrants themselves aren’t grateful either. Lenin’s affectionate term for Western Liberals who believed every word he said and supported the USSR totally was “Useful Idiot.” I don’t doubt that in his own Persian language Xerxes had an equally derisive term for people he publicly referred to as Medizers. Every Republic and Democracy in history has selfish, self-absorbed people who use that nation’s own freedoms against it in order to help the most depraved dictatorships. No free nation has ever long survived the likes of such people.

As the sixth anniversary of 9-11 approaches, Liberals have added an enormous crime to their long list of many others. They have done their uttermost to send the memory of the heroes and martyrs of 9-11 down the memory hole. The Liberal Media has slowly guided us back to lionizing their favorite heroes- pornographers, abortionists, comedians who tell dirty jokes and hygienically challenged, dope-smoking hippies who helped out the Stalinist Ho Chi Minh. It is poignant to note that Orwell in “1984” believed that the murdering of the past was a greater crime of INGSOC (the Left Wing Socialist Party of Big Brother) than all the murder, death, torture and other tyranny they inflicted. Perhaps he was right. Whatever your take on it, it is a terrible crime against humanity.

The Liberal Media has decided that images of 9-11 are not to be shown to us because of the passions they might excite in us. They had no problem running non-stop images of Abu Ghraib in order to excite anger against our soldiers. We should show those images every day. Our people have forgotten them and are in much need of reminding before the next bomb goes off on American soil.

Cato Uticensis

3^rd Infantry Division 1996-1999

The Obsolete Man

I just watched my favorite Twilight Zone episode, "The Obsolete Man" which starred Burgess Meredith. Rod Serling opened the episode thus:

"You walk into this room at your own risk, because it leads to the future, not a future that will be but one that might be. This is not a new world, it is simply an extension of what began in the old one. It has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advancements, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom. But like every one of the super states that preceded it, it has one iron rule: logic is an enemy and truth is a menace. This is Mr. Romney Wordsworth, in his last forty-eight hours on Earth. He's a citizen of the State but will soon have to be eliminated, because he's built out of flesh and because he has a mind. Mr. Romney Wordsworth, who will draw his last breaths—in the Twilight Zone."

Meredith played Romney Wordsworth. The room that Serling referred to was a long hall where the Chancellor of the almighty State sat and pontificated over the fates of the Politically Incorrect. Wordsworth boldly pronounces his profession as that of Librarian. The Chancellor is appalled that he would make such a declaration, why a librarian was obsolete, because there were no more books, just as a Minister was obsolete as the State had proven there was no God. Wordsworth made no defense of himself, but when the Chancellor said there was no God, he stood upright and said, "There IS a God!" After an exchange the elderly Librarian said, "You can't erase God with an edict!"

The mighty State gives Wordsworth his choice of manner and time to die, as long as it is accomplished within 48 hours. He elects to have an assassin come to him and only he and the assassin know the manner of death. Wordsworth also asks to have his death televised. The representative of the State agrees and comes to visit him at the appointed time. He tells him how Hitler and Stalin had made good beginings but hadn't gone nearly far enough.

It turns out that the method of death chosen was for a bomb to go off and when the Chancellor came into Wordsworth's quarters, the door locked behind him. Wordsworth calmly took out his Bible and began to read from the Psalms- "The Lord is my Shepherd"...."A Fool has said in his Heart there is no God." In the end, the Chancellor breaks down and says, "In the Name of God, let me out" and Wordsworth responds, "In the Name of God, yes" and hands him the key. The Chancellor escapes just before the big blast. And the next day the Mighty State declares him obsolete. He asks for the mercy he never showed and is refused. The visciousness of the totalitarian State ground on.

I thought of this episode, a long favorite of mine, when I saw a Facebook group with many thousand members that said that Government plus religion equalled disaster. The saying goes that those who do not know their history will repeat it. It is obvious that the secularist of modern America knows no 20th century history. The states which try to erase God from their midst also have a way of becoming the most totalitarian of all. Hitler and Stalin sought to remove Christ from Russia and Germany. Let us also remember Mao and Pol Pot.

I see in the modern ardent secularist the same type of person on the old Twilight Zone episode, or in Stalin's Russia. Someone who is not content to not worship God themself. They have to forbid you to do it also. So often do the ACLU types get away with implying that their "Separation of Church and State," a concept nowhere in the US Constitution is something for the benefit of freedom. But how is silencing voluntary prayer, a violation of free speech and freedom of religion, freedom. "Freedom is slavery" Orwell described that best, how the Leftist of the '30s, '40s or today thinks. If a hundred people in room say a prayer that no one is forced to participate in (and no one ever was in this country, from 1776 until the judicial travesty known as Engel v Vitale which declared that the law of the USSR, not America dictated) where on Atheist is, there is no imposition on the Atheist. You have a hundred people using their free speech and freedom of religion and one person may not like it. But there is no Amendment guaranteeing you will like what someone else has to say. But if that one Atheist gets and ACLU lawyer to silence the one hundred people in the name of the mythical "Separation of Church and State," well then there is an imposition.

Someone who believes in the Soviet model of "Separation of Church and State," as does the ACLU and the agressive secularist is no friend to freedom. The Totalitarian State in "The Obsolete Man" was probably unimaginable to most of the viewing public on June 2, 1961 when it first aired. And yet with each freedom that the Secular Left takes away, a similar nightmare state draws near. It is truly frightening that the Left has convinced so many millions of people that it is the only bulwark of freedom, when in fact it is the only serious threat to the freedom of the Free World. Do we not remember Gdansk in 1981, where the Polish Christians stood their ground against the Atheist tyrants, and brought freedom to 1/3 of the world within a decade? How soon we forget. So many Americans today would consider Brezhnev and Jaruselski to be standup guys and Lech Walesa to be a "Religious Right" extremist. Oh how soon we forget!

America, we had better wake up and remember soon.

Who's a Victim?

Imagine if you will an abortion clinic set on fire by abortion protesters. The protesters watch it burn and as Fire Trucks come to put out the fire. They interfere with the firemen and cut their firehoses. Law enforecement comes on the scene. They shout for the protesters to leave, and give them ample opportunity to do so, with no repercussions. Instead the protesters stay and shout and goad the law enforcement officials with curses and continue to interfere with the firemen. The Law fires a few rounds over their heads and gives them clear warning that they will be fired upon if they do not leave. The only response is more verbal abuse. Reluctantly, the law enforcement people open fire, killing four of the protesters.

What, do you imagine, would be the reaction in the Drive-by Media? Not difficult to imagine, they would be going off about how people who protest abortion need to be muzzled and have their First Amendment rights even further curtailed. In the wake of the media firestorm, you can bet that corrupt Democratic Policians and lawyers would do exactly that.

But that is not what really happened. On May 4, 1970, the building that was set fire to was the ROTC building on the campus of Kent State University, and the firemen were interfered with, as stated above. The protesters were Leftist protesters trying to help bring about a Communist Vietnam and Cambodia in which millions would die and millions more be sent to "Re-Education" Camps that were no different from Dachau or Buchenwald or flee their homes with the clothes on their backs. And they could have left with nothing happening to them. But they chose to stay and abuse the Guardsmen and taunt them. the Guardsmen made one last effort before opening fire saying "you are surrounded, give up." The protesters were not in fact surrounded and they just laughed it off. The Guardsmen opened fire with a volley that killed four people. As odious a creature as a spoiled brat baby-boomer hippie who doesn't bathe too often is, it is truly regretable that four of them were killed. But they were the ones who brought their situation upon themselves and they alone bear responsibility for what happened to them. Not to mention their share of the responsibility of what happened to the two million Cambodians murdered in the Killing Fields, but that is another matter.

Why do I bring this up? Self Described "victim" Alan Canfora, who famously waved a black flag at the Guardsmen is planning on leading a candlelight vigil for the four "victims" who died at Kent State 37 years ago. He has a typical black-helicopter conspiracy theory that there is some cover-up about Kent State and he bemoans that the Guardsmen never went to jail. Well, the hippie arsonists who went burned down the Kent State ROTC building never spent a day in jail for their real crime of setting fire to a building either. Instead, they got ambulance-chasing lawyers to sue the State of Ohio and harass the Guardsmen who only did their duty.

I asked Mr Canfora via email if the two million Cambodians dead or the displaced and murdered or tortured Vietnamese concerned him at all. His reply vacillated and it is my opinion that he does not concern himself much with the millions of Indochinese who who died or suffered so horribly because he and his comrades got what they wanted in 1975.

This is another case of what I previously called "The Sad Sorry Leftist Cult of It's Own Victimhood." Four spoiled brats who got themselves killed commiting arson count for more than the millions piled into mass graves by Communism. And, for the record, I wish the four had not died, merely been arrested and punished for arson. But to act like four people who stood up for tyranny in the face of freedom count more than murdered innocent millions is a travesty and it makes my blood boil.

Americans, let us say a resounding, "NO!" to Mr Canfora, who doesn't seem to have any identity other than that of "Victim" of National Guard meanies 37 years ago. Let say "No" to his victimhood, "No" to his cause of appeasement masquerading as peace, the false peace of slavery to tyrants. "No sale" here at the Republic of Utica, Mr Canfora.

Happy Patriots Day

Today we honor the 232nd anniversary of the first battles between the Bi-Coastal Elites (Unicoastal in those days) and the "Flyover Country" (obviously no flying over back then). I refer to the Battles of Lexington and Concord. On this day in 1775, local militias made their stand on the Village Green of Lexington under the command of Captain John Parker. "Stand your ground men; don't fire unless fired upon; but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!" Parker bravely said. His bold words were matched with brave deeds as his militiamen stood against the government forces. With overwhelming force, the Government forces left eight militiamen dead and then moved on to Concord. The Militia soundly drubbed the British Government Forces at Concord and were ambushed by Parker's Militia on their retreat to Boston. It was the famous "shot heard round the world."

Americans in those days were torn between supporting the new Revolution against an overweening, overtaxing government and those who favored kissing up to their tyrant, George III. The Patriotic Militia that favored an independent America, governing itself was composed of men from the outlying areas, rural and small towns, mainly. Derisively it is called "Flyover Country" today. These farmers were the ancestors of they who settled in Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Texas and similar locales. George III's American bootlickers were mainly coastal urban elites living inside the cities like Boston and New York. Sound familiar? It should.

The current Blue State elites are the political heirs of the Loyalists who were so subservient to their King. These supposed Americans, who get all huffy if you ever posit that they are not as American as they might be, have ever opposed American freedom and autonomy. I remember one of my Boston-area High School classmates summed it up best when she said, "I'm not into America." To expound upon what she meant, she would much prefer being a European and living as the Europeans do.

The Coastal Urban Elites have ever sought for a European tyrant to govern America, much preferring that to us "Cowboys" and "Rednecks" who they are supposedly countrymen with. During the War of 1812, the New England states gathered together and threatened secession from the Union and rapprochement with the King. This was in 1815, and their delegation threatening this action came to Washington and found the people celebrating the peace made at the Treaty of Ghent. A hero of the New England elite, Henry David Thoreau, made his mark opposing the war against Mexico's dictator, Santa Anna. True, Santa Anna was not European, but the "Napoleon of the West" was surely a dictator in the European mold, and had pretensions to such.

Less than a century afterwards, by the 1920s, the Yale and Harvard elites came to see Bolshevism as the greatest thing since sliced bread. "I have seen the future and it works" said one Liberal after returning from the USSR at that time. Joseph Stalin had become the Coastal Urban Elite's new George III. When FDR was inaugurated in early 1933, his first act was to extend diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. His ambassador to Moscow, Davies, justified Stalin's 1937 purges implying that most everyone who got it in that had it coming, as did Liberal Media propagandists like I.F. Stone. Stone also claimed that the man-made famine of 1932 and 1933 in which ten million people died never happened. Until his death Liberal elites pined for Uncle Joe as their leader and forget the American way of life. They laugh at things like that.

Whittaker Chambers was a Communist in the 1930s. He left the Party in 1938 and testified to the fact that many of FDR's cabinet ministers were in the service of the USSR and manipulating American policy for Stalin's benefit. He was demonized by the thugs of the DNC, but recent documentation has shown that he told the truth. Tens of thousands of American soldiers died needlessly in the pointless invasion of France and Belgium in 1944. We should have invaded the thinly garrisoned Balkans and gone straight to Berlin from there. France and Belgium would have fallen to us bloodlessly anyway and we could have prevented the Politburo from turning the Balkans into a gulag. But Stalin wanted the invasion of Northern France, and whatever Uncle Joe wanted, Uncle Joe got from Democrats in those days.

Chambers observed that American Communists loved to fawn over Russians in the day when the Politburo ran things. And, in my two years among the children of Limosine Liberals of Boston, I observed the same thing about most any Leftist, even as recently as the 1980s. In those days, the Bi-Coastal Urban elites welcomed Mikhail Gorbachev with loving open arms. "It was like the Second Coming" gushed one Liberal during the Soviet Premier's official visit. The same Liberals who gushed and fawned over Gorby hated Ronald Reagan with a viscious venom. How dare Ronald Reagan stand up to their new George III and win the Cold War? Reagan was called a Nazi and worse. When he spoke of the notion that the Communists might come to the frontier of Texas if allowed to gain a foothold on the Mesoamerican mainland, one Liberal commentator responded to the effect that they were welcome to it. Yes, a supposed American didn't care if Texas went Communist. More than likely he enjoyed the idea of it. I'm certain that he would have enjoyed the idea of Cubans and Sandinistas lording it over Texas "cowboys." Some Americans!

So let's take a moment on this Patriot's Day and take stock- people who are not Patriots have control of Congress and are trying to steer the US for the benefit of World Socialism. But we are still better than our forbeaers were at Lexington and Concord. Like our forerunners, it is our duty to stand up to the Left and its desire to put a new George III over us. Honor the sacrifice of patriots past and seek to emulate them against the forces of socialist tyranny. America's future depends on it.

The Uselessness of Liberalism

I have long wanted to do a post entitled "The Sad, Sorry Left Wing Cult of Its Own Martyrdom." My desire to do this was stoked when I saw a poster advertising the upcoming film about the Dixie Chicks. It describes how they are poor, wretched victims because nobody between Reno and the Delaware River wants to buy their crappy records anymore. The reason? It boils down to they have mouths much bigger than their brains and no great love for this country. But what persecution have they suffered? Former fans don't buy their records anymore, DJs choose not to play their songs and people tell them they are stupid. Well, it is a First Amendment right of those people to do that. Are we to force fans to buy their records? Are we to force DJs to play their songs on the radio when they don't want to? Are we to silence the freedom of speech of the people who think (know) the Chicks are dumb? We certainly haven't silenced the Liberals who spout off that Bush is dumb and yet still allegedly managed to bamboozle them into a war for oil. In reality, Liberals are not at all concerned with people's freedom to disagree with them.

In "Meet the Fockers" Dustin Hoffmann plays a hippie who took a bath and became a bloodsucking lawyer for the ACLU. He tells his infant grandson to "Question Everything." Liberals even made that into a bumpersticker once. But they don't REALLY want you to question EVERYTHING. They don't want you questioning them, their motives or anything they say. If you choose to use your freedom to do so, then you are guilty of "McCarthyism," a myth that has served Liberals well for fifty years running.

"McCarthyism" is a cornerstone of the Leftist Cult of Its Own Martyrdom. Liberals today cannot admit that most of their political forbeaerers in the 1930s and 1940s, all the way up to FDR's VP Wallace (1941-1945) and even, to an extent, FDR himself, were great admirers of Joseph Stalin. Many on the Left in those days took that admiration all the way to outright loyalty to Stalin over America.

Rather than face this truth, admit it, and make a committment to being loyal to America first and foremost, they blacken the name of the man who investigated it- Joe McCarthy. Liberals constantly describe the early 1950s as a time of "paranoia." Tell me, when a hostile force committed to the violent overthrow of our Constitution rules Russia and China and has agents in high places in our government, how is it paranoia to be concerned about this? How is it a witch hunt to investigate how far this went? Simple answer, it is not, not in the least. How easy it is for someone sitting in the comfort of a Starbuck's to call concern over a mass murderer like Stalin "paranoia!"

Liberals are making up the same garbage about the days following 9-11. The general pre-recorded template coming from Leftists is that "Neocons," especially President Bush, used Post-911 anger to wage war for oil in Iraq, or something similar and equally asinine. People like the Dixie Chicks and Bill Maher, who have mouths much bigger than their brains, are treated as martyrs, as are the POW terrorists at GITMO.

Liberals NEED to convince people that America was "paranoid" and "McCarthyistic" in those days. Why? Because the days after 9-11 showed how utterly useless and inane Liberalism is. When the towers fell, who needed an ACLU lawyer, a Feminazi Activist, a Vegan Environmentalist or Jesse Jackson? We didn't, those people were the last people we wanted or needed to hear from in those days. Everything they said or did was utterly irrelevant. We needed cops, soldiers and firemen, the kind of men Liberals love to hate. America was wide awake and aware of how political correctness was getting people killed. Liberals were utterly miserable in late 2001 and 2002. Not because 3000 Americans had been murdered. Not because anyone was persecuting them. Rather, it was because nobody had the time to listen to their childish temper tantrums. The Real World had landed on our heads in a big way and the Ivory Tower Dreamworld of Liberalism was suddenly irrelevant.

It is sad that the American attention span has become so short that the lessons of 9-11 are now forgotten and we are asleep again, like it was 9-10-01. Left Wing Starbuck's dwellers are listened to about the Iraq War more than the soldiers who fight in it. And they are turning their post-911 irrelevance into martyrdom, Dixie Chicks style.

I must confess that I fear the worst. With the current moronic Democratic Congress our soldiers will be hamstrung and our political will is shown to be wanting. We cannot be so foolish as to believe that the terrorists in Iraq don't notice all the help our Left is giving them. And Liberal foolishness will not merely affect the Middle East. China and North Korea are seriously doubting our resolve to defend our Asian Allies, as are many of those Asian Allies themselves. You think South Korea doesn't remember what happened to South Vietnam? A Japanese leader recently publicly expressed his doubts that America could protect East Asia from China. HE based that on how we are letting a bunch of ignorant hippies wreck our war effort in Iraq. The upshot of this could well be a war in the Pacific Rim that we wouldn't even have to fight if Liberals grew a brain.

This time, I don't believe that Liberals will be able to go back into their coffeehouses and make up great stories about how wonderful they are for helping mass murderers against America, the way they did in 1975. I'm fairly certain that with idiots running Congress we will be hit by the terrorists again. And when this happen, I just hope a piece of America won't be glowing in the dark.

The Eternal Struggle of American Politics

THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE IN AMERICAN POLITICS

In I Samuel 8, God’s people came and demanded a King. Israel’s government at that time was the Judges. A Judge would govern, along with some other junior judges, after God would speak to them. The nation was free. But many Israelites wanted to be like other countries. They wanted a monarch, to be more like them. The last Judge of Israel, Samuel, was told by God to warn the people what their new King would be like. “He will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take your male and female slaves and the best of your cattle and donkeys and put them to his work. He will take one tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; And the Lord will not answer you in that day.” (I Samuel 8:11-18)

Saul was then made king of Israel. He was supplanted by David, who passed the crown on to his son Solomon. David had fought many wars and Solomon undertook a massive building program, which included the Temple of God. As the Lord had predicted, the people of Israel were put to heavy burdens. When Solomon died he was succeeded by his son Rehoboam (II Chronicles 9:29-31). The people cried out to Rehoboam and asked him to lighten the burdens Solomon and his two predecessors had placed on them. (II Chronicles 10:4-5) Rehoboam responded thus: “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to it; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.” (II Chronicles 14-15). At that point the Kingdom of Israel split apart. (II Chronicles 10:16-19)

I can’t help but find parallels between Israel 3000 years ago and America today. America was founded on the principle that God makes men free and other men make each other slaves. This was in the philosophies of John Locke, whose writings were the Inspiration of the Declaration of Independence. We have been given great freedom by God here in America. And Europe has wallowed in a mire of Socialism, Dictatorship and strife for the last century. Political Correctness stifles free thought in Socialist Europe, you can be fined a lot of money for speaking your mind if some bloodless Socialist bureaucrat finds what you say offensive. Soon prison terms will be handed out for those who rock the boat. And there are many Americans, our Liberal brothers mainly, who, instead of reveling in the freedom God has given us, long to have a Socialist Dictatorship or Oligarchy, so we can be like the rest of the world.

This is the eternal struggle of American Politics- the desire of Northeastern elites for an Old World Tyrant versus Heartland Americans desire for freedom and independence. I came to realize this as I read about an account of the Revolutionary War from 1775 and it detailed how the Patriots besieging Boston in the Spring of that year were scornfully called “the Country People.” Most of the Loyalist Population in America were the urban elites, mainly in the Northeast. The Revolutionary War was the first struggle between “Flyover Country” (though, of course, no flying over was going on) and the Bi-coastal Elites (though they were on a single coast at that time). The Patriots of Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord were the forefathers of the brave people who would settle in places like Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Nebraska and Montana. The Loyalists who didn’t flee to Canada after the war were the forbearers(not necessarily the physical ancestors, but political “ancestors”) of the Left Wing Urban elites who think that Kofi Annan and Jaques Chirac need to run this country rather than its elected American president. They are the same people who preferred George III to George Washington. And there is a relatively unbroken chain of events from the time of the Two Georges down to our own where they have displayed their desire for European and later Eurasian governance.

First we have the Hartford Conference of 1814 and 1815. The upshot of this is the New England States threaten to secede from the Union if peace is not made between the US and Britain. The delegation from this conference arrived in Washington DC early in 1815 to find the people of that city celebrating the end of hostilities. We can be certain that these states would have drifted back into British orbit, their independence being only a formality, a fig leaf, as it were.

But as the 19^th century drew to a close and the 20^th was around the corner, the Northeastern Elites (who rode comfortable boxcars out to California and Seattle and Portland after the “Country People” had civilized the American West, making them now the Bi-Coastal Elites we know so well) their quest for their European Master took a different turn. Marxism and Socialism had caught on in the coffeehouses of Paris and Berlin and Moscow. Waves of European immigrants brought the Red Ideas to America in the late 19^th and early 20^th century. These people often barely escaped the Secret Police of the Tsar or the Kaiser. But were they grateful to their new homeland for safety and freedom of conscience? Not for a minute, they immediately began building Sleeper Cells with a mind to overthrowing the United States government in favor of a Red one. An Anarchist even killed our President, McKinley, in 1901. The Left of then, as today, never embraced the idea of freedom, merely they sought to use our own freedoms against us as best they can. The “Red Diaper Baby” children and grandchildren of these Red Immigrants would make the nucleus of the Leftist upheavals caused by stinky hippies in the 1960s.

But soon the fashionable coffeehouses of New York, Boston and Philadelphia had many socialists and Communists in them as well as many other Left Wing factions. The Intelligentsia of the Bi-Coastal Elites came to see the new USSR as the great hope of humanity after 1917. Yes, when Liberals tell you that everything good that ever happened came from Liberalism, they don’t talk about how they loved Joseph Stalin, supported him, adored him, even glossed over his crimes until they were no longer deniable.

The Franklin Roosevelt Administration was filled with Soviet Agents- Alger Hiss, a Harvard elitist from one of the finest New England families, was an Assistant Secretary of State. Harry Dexter White, another lovely blueblood, was at Treasury. Even the Vice President from 1941 to 1945, Henry Wallace was what is known as a “Fellow Traveler,” someone who sympathizes with and has all the same aims as a Communist, but is not officially a card-carrying member. For four years, such a man was one heartbeat away from the presidency, which was held by a man who died three weeks after Truman was inaugurated to replace Wallace as Vice President. Not that FDR deserves any great praise. The man was very nearly a fellow traveler himself and certainly one of Stalin‘s great admirers. None of this is subject to debate, as Liberals might claim, we found their pay stubs in the Old KGB Headquarters during the 1990s.

So the anti-American Independence elites then turned to Stalin as the European that Americans needed to bow down to, rather than the English King. Stalin’s USSR was the great wave of the future that they had been dreaming of, and they began to make their best efforts to turn America into another Soviet Union. Sadly, they have been at least partially successful. Soviet legal concepts that have no basis in American law whatsoever, such as Separation of Church and State, are regularly imposed on Americans by the Left. Left Wing propagandists like I.F. Stone and Walter Duranty wrote charming fairy tales about Stalin’s “Workers’ Paradise.” And Liberals believed in and delighted in them.

Many Conservatives posit “what if?” questions about if we had the Liberal Media we have today, how would world War II have gone? We DID have much the same Liberal Media that exists today during the War years. However, Hitler had invaded the “Workers’ Paradise” of their beloved Stalin five months before Pearl Harbor. So the Left was not going to do anything to sabotage any effort we might make to defeat Stalin’s enemy, Hitler. But Ronald Radosh in his book “Commies” (describing his youth as a Red Diaper Baby) relates how the Left had helped Hitler in the pre-Barbarossa days. On August 23, 1939 the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact had been signed, making the USSR and Nazi Germany benevolent neutrals towards one another. In the critical days of 1940, during the Battle of Britain, English Leftists used to spy out damage done by German planes to England, report to the Soviet embassy, where the information was promptly passed on to Berlin. At that same time and a little later, the US was sending aid to Britain under the “Lend-Lease” Program. Obeying Moscow’s instructions, American Leftists used to foment phony strikes at plants making Lend-Lease materiel, often slowing down progress. This is another thing the Left never tells us about when they are talking about how wonderful they are- their guilt of abetting the Nazis between August, 1939 and June, 1941. I think any discerning person can easily reach the conclusion that the American Leftist activists and the Liberal Media would have lied and sabotaged our efforts in WWII had Molotov-Ribbentropp still been in effect at the time of US entry into the war. Exactly the same crap they pulled in Vietnam and are pulling in Iraq right now.

When Stalin was denounced in 1956, Liberals couldn’t deny his atrocities any more. After all, the sitting Soviet Premier had just admitted the truth. Still, it didn’t stop the American Left from supporting the USSR and its proxies against their own country. Ho Chi Minh posters were popular among Leftists in the ‘60s, along with ones of Che Guevarra. Again, the Bi-Coastal Elites took the side of a foreing leader over their own country. America was not fit to be strong an independent in the view of ‘60s Leftists. America needed the benevolent guidance of World Socialism. In the 1980s how the Liberals loved Gorbachev! And how they hated Reagan! Not to mention their love of Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro.

As a young teen in the 1980s living in Liberal Elitist Massachusetts one of my favorite movies was “Red Dawn.” I remember how Liberals resented the way the Soviets were portrayed in that movie. Some crackhead Liberal Media “journalist” could write some yellow-journalism guerilla-theater BS about Marines in Vietnam biting the heads off of babies that the Hanoi Politburo told them to say and the Liberals would believe it. They’d eat it up with a spoon. But don’t ever insinuate that their Soviet brothers would ever be less than perfect gentlemen! They’d really get mad then!

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book “Witness” that when American Leftist met an actual Soviet Russian, they just gushed and fawned all over him or her. I know exactly what he was talking about. In my time in the ‘80s in Dukakis’ Massachusetts we never met any actual Soviets, but the way my Liberal brothers up there talked about Gorby and the others, it is obvious that they would have tripped over each other to fawn over any Soviet citizen they ran into.

The Soviet Bloc collapsed from 1989 to 1991 and suddenly Liberals acted as if we always knew this was going to happen and as if they never rendered any assistance whatsoever to their Russian brothers (not their Russian brothers any more now that Socialism is gone). All the Liberal “geniuses” who said in the mid-’80s that we’d be living in Nuclear Winter if we didn’t appease the USSR suddenly forgot all their brilliant pronouncements!

Today the Liberals want to bow down to the UN and Socialist leaders like Jaques Chriac. We still can’t have the United States being strong, independent and thinking for itself or looking out for its own good. We still need a benevolent European or Asian (the Left is “multicultural” now!) dictator to hold our hand. And I realize that we are still fighting the Battles of Lexington and Concord when we stand up to the Left. Our independence, our freedom, our culture- the Left wants all these submerged in the morass of the new UN world. And now, these people run our Congress. Happy New Year America!

THE GREAT LEFTIST MANPOWER SHORTAGE

“He who controls the past controls the future,” Orwell once said. And Orwell would know. His faction in the Spanish Civil War was purged in 1937. The Party Line said that this was because this POUM was, in fact, not a Marxist Party as the “M” stands for, but in fact they were secret Trotskyite Fascists plotting to help Franco. And how did the Liberal Media in Orwell’s home country of England react to this patently ridiculous assertion? Why they ate it right up and amplified it through their own outlets. Just like Liberal Media journalists for the New York Times were printing stories about Stalin’s wonderful workers’ paradise while the Man of Steel was deliberately starving tens of millions of Ukrainians and Georgians to death. But that is the stuff of another blog piece. Nothing has changed between the 1930s and Dan Rather’s forged documents and Jayson Blair’s politically correct fairy tales. The things Orwell wrote about in “1984” had ALREADY HAPPENED AT THE TIME OF THE WRITING, barring a few items that were high-tech in 1948. His representation of Ministry of Truth was as much a shot at the Liberal Media outlets of the West as it was at Moscow’s propaganda machine in the days of Stalin.

I have noticed that the recent propaganda by the Left often stops Conservatives who love this country in their tracks. They claim that the Left was the savior of black people and of women and that to disagree with them is to be a woman hating racist. It’s hard to beat an enemy who can hang that around your neck. The weenie of it is that they don’t deserve to be the legends that they are in their own mind. Let us examine the real history of Civil Rights for blacks and women and see how their claims stack up.

It is important to remember that the traditional opponent of slavery was the Republican Party. At its formation in the 1850s, Abolitionism was one of its main raisons d’etre. The Democratic Party, conversely, was the champion of the slave master and the traditional opponent of any civil rights measure. And when called on this, Democrats do not deny this. They merely attempt to spin these facts away by saying that in the 1860s it was Liberal Republicans fighting for abolition and Conservative Democrats championing slavery. However, the fact of the matter is, that from the days of the 1850s until today, the Republicans were always the Party of Free Markets, Traditional Judeo-Christian Morals and staunch Americanism. In the 1860s, as today, Democrats called the Republicans the “Party of the Rich.” From that day to this, the Democrats have always been the so-called “Party of the Poor.” The Democrats have always had a Leftist appeal.

No, in fact, the Democratic demagogues of the 19th century frequently beat the drum of helping poor whites against the rich Republican capitalists who were allowing blacks to “take their jobs away.” the democratic base in the late 19th century was the South and the poor, white inner city dwellers who were used as muscle by Democrat Machine bosses like Boss Tweed of New York, whose corrupt practices were proverbial.

So why the change? Why did the Party which staunchly opposed civil rights suddenly change its tune? Well, those poor white inner-city dwellers so well dramatized in “Gangs of New York” began moving to the suburbs after 1945. Many of FDR’s supporters in the 1930s and 1940s voted for Eisenhower in the 1950s. The urban bosses were bleeding constituents. In the South too, as a previously non-existent Middle Class began to grow, so too did a nascent Republican Party. The Democrats were losing bodies fast and they needed to replace them. The Blacks were available. So the Machine Bosses who lynched blacks in the 1920s suddenly became their white knights in the 1960s and 1970s. Bear in mind that Governor George Wallace, the man who stood on the steps of the University of Alabama in 1962 defending white supremacy, was the black man’s “champion” a little more than ten years later. The Left did not have their hearts grow three sizes overnight for black people.

This change was pretty much worldwide for socialism (let’s face it people, the Democratic Party is part of the World Socialist Movement and has been for at least 75 years, if not more). Russia becoming the first Communist country in 1917 was an accident. They had wanted Germany first, then France and England and outward from there. The lingua franca of the Communist Party until 1941 was German. After 1917, they had hoped that Germany would become the second Communist country. Communism and Socialism looked towards Western Europe. But, like their American comrades, they too had a manpower shortage. Germany, after its invasion of Russia was crushed, got itself flattened, and the Communists no longer looked to it the way they once did in Marx’s day. England and France united with the USA to stop Communism. Seven million Soviets died during WWII, while the US lost maybe 5 percent as many. Its new Eastern European satellites had been more heavily devastated than the free nations of Western Europe. Russia needed more bodies allied to it. It was then that World Socialism went from being a solely White European thing that cared nothing for the Third World to suddenly being the champion of the downtrodden masses of Afro-Asia. It is ironic how many brown-skinned dwellers of the Tropic Regions worship at the altar of Karl Marx, who believed them inferior and not worth his trouble.

Thus we can be certain that the Left had no great love for dark-skinned people. They merely needed their votes and pretended to care in return. One thing people need to wake up and realize is that welfare states are never created to benefit the recipients of the largesse, but to benefit the politicians who use other peoples’ money to show how “generous” they are.

Given what history teaches us about the Left and its relations with people of color, Conservatives need never allow Liberals to get away with propagandizing that anyone is a racist who disagrees with them. Liberals have always thrived on race riots, whether the rioters were black or white.

Examining the history of the Womens’ Movement gives us a similar story. Any Liberal who asserts that anyone who disagrees with their asinine policies is a sexist needs to have it pointed out to them that Susan B. Anthony, a Conservative Republican, was probably turning over in her grave at the notion of so-called Feminists destroying the lives of young women for the sake of a corrupt old lecher like Bill Clinton who used women like toilet paper, the exact kind of man she spent her life fighting against. Let us not make the common mistake of confusing the narcissistic harpies who hijacked the Womens’ Movement in the 1960s with the real Womens’ Movement of the 19th and early 20th century. The suffragettes were not the modern feminists who think that the universe revolves around their vagina. They were, most of them, deeply religious and did a lot of good for society as a whole. In some societies, the staunchest opposition to women getting the vote came from Communists, Socialists and other Left Wingers. Here in America, it was the Conservatives who got women the vote. In 1919, when the XIX Amendment was passed, Conservative Republicans were in the majority in Congress and the State Legislatures. What is even more telling is that the 1920 elections, the first with female participation, was a total Republican blowout and the beginning of a decade of complete Republican dominance. And they weren’t Liberal Republicans. Herbert Hoover was of this generation of the GOP.

The Dung Merchants of the Liberal Media have convinced a large segment of the population that working for an oil company is a greater crime than leaving one’s concubine on the bottom of a river while swimming one’s fat ass to safety. And they have done so with the willing connivance of the hypocrites of the so-called Womens’ Movement. Americans, don’t ever let one of those two-faced talkers-out-both-sides-of-their-mouth ever take any moral high ground on you. People whose main fight is for the right to put babies into ovens don’t have the right.

“He who controls the past controls the future.” Orwell said a mouthful. The Left successfully manipulates the perceptions of America’s past and in so doing leverage considerable control over our future. Being Liberal really means loving European and Asian socialism and hating everything American that stands in its way. Being Conservative means loving America and wanting to protect it from this creeping socialism. It is incumbent on every Conservative to learn their history so that the Orwellian Left cannot control our future by controlling our past. We can either do that, or we can let the Dan Rathers of the world “educate” us.

Merry Christmas America

The Republic of Utica apologizes for the hiatus of Autumn 2006. It was the first real semester of Grad School and for those of you who’ve never been, I can tell you it’s a real picnic (hehe). Anyway, I wanted to wish the Greatest Country on Earth a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah for my Jewish brothers. The University is a real treat for those of us in the Conservative Movement. Professors who are supposed to encourage us to think but not tell us what to think, actually do the reverse. The Classics Department at FSU is not bad in this regard, but the History and Political Science Departments have as much free thought as the University of Moscow thirty years ago.

But in the Classics Department, some Liberals, ever eager to stab a knife in American culture, have taken to doing away with BC and AD “Before Christ” and “Anno Domini” aka “Year of Our Lord.” They replace them with the ridiculous “CE” and “BCE” “Common Era” and “Before Common Era.” Naturally I write out “Year of Our Lord” at least once in every paper. Here in America, we say BC and AD.

American culture is ever under attack by the Left and they wont stop until America is as dull and monochrome socialist as North Korea or Cuba. Thus, I do not wish anyone “Happy Holidays.” Here in America we celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. That is our culture. I do not have to stop up my culture just because a few Liberals who hanker for Stalinist Russia are offended. I encourage all Americans to just be Americans and continue our customs, as every free people has inalienable right to, granted by their Creator.

Make the Liberal Grinches and Scrooges angry- wish them a Merry Christmas.

Conservatives, do not be down about November’s disgrace. It was a six year itch and was won with SERIOUS triangulation, moreso than even 1992. And if not for the Foley Scandal, the Republicans probably would have staved off the Democrat traitors. Once again, the Liberal who possessed Foley’s emails had them since 2003 and he was never questioned about holding on to them for three years. Like at Chappaquiddick, the real criminal walked away scot free. How brainwashed you have to be to be a Liberal! You need to believe that working at an oil company is a greater crime than leaving your concubine on the bottom of a river while swimming your fat ass to safety! Pretty sorry. It just tells us Conservatives that we still have a lot of work to do, much propaganda to counter.

Be of good cheer, Americans. Yes, the beach-heads of European socialism on American soil, better known as Blue State America, have grown. But resistance still burns in the heartland of America.

Have a Merry Christmas.

And to all a Good Night!

217 BC vs 2006 AD

The Republic of Utica wishes to apologize for its long absence. I began full time Grad School at the end of August and ended up having to relocate from Panama City Beach to Tallahassee in Florida. I will try to be present and comment on the upcoming elections. And if the Demagogue Party actually wins, we will need to watch them, catalogue their every villany. Believe you me, fellow citizens of the Republic, they are eager to pay us back for the freedom we've enjoyed under a Republican Congress. Remember the Fairness Doctrine and the attacks on the freedom of Anti-Abortion protesters. We will ALL get a dose of that under a Demagogue Congress. Not that the GOP Congress has been all that it should be. But under Speaker Pelosi, if such a terrible thing happens, you will be pining for the halcyon days of Speaker Hastert, I promise you.

This leads into what I wish to discuss on this first post in awhile. For those of you with photographic memories, I beg your indulgence. I covered this topic in my "Demagogy in History" post of October 19, 2005. But I feel we need a refresher on that, a reminder of what catastrophe Left Wing demagogues cause, not just in our own day, but going back even before the Year of Our Lord. I refer to the election campaign in 217 BC of the Roman Gaius Terentius Varro.

Rather than start at the beginning, I will start at how the story ends, for those of us who are not Classics Majors. On August 2, 216 Before Christ (I am tired of Leftist attacks on our culture. In response to their use of "CE" and "BCE" I will write out "In the Year of Our Lord" and "Before Christ" at least once in anything I write, if it is warranted. I encourage all of you out there to do the same, it will drive Libs crazy, and honor the Good Lord at the samne time) the Roman Army met the mercenary Army of Hannibal of Carthage at the Southern Italian hamlet of Cannae. Some estimate the Roman Army had eighty to ninety thousand Legionaries against Hannibal's polyglot fifty thousand, half of whom were Gauls who fought naked and often drunk or hung over, relying only on battle frenzy, rather than being well-armed and keeping formation. Another significant percentage of Hannibal's Army were Iberians, who, like the Gauls, were fierce, but lightly armed and armored. Only the Numidians and African Allied contingents were armed like Heavy Hoplites and Heavy Cavalry. In this pitiful force, there would have been several language barriers and cohesion virtually non-existant. And yet, the fifty thousand rag-tags, under the brilliant leadership of Hannibal, managed to surround the ninety thousand Romans and slaughter them wholesale, killing about sixty thousand (Rome, in one day, lost the entirety of what we lost in Vietnam and then some). One of Rome's two Consuls (their executive branch, equivalent to our president), Lucius Aemilius Paullus, died on the battlefield, along with many of Rome's best leaders. This was the greatest military disaster Rome had seen or would see for centuries. Many Romans thought that their Republic was lost and that Hannibal would become master of Italy after this defeat. The three greatest cities of Italy and Sicily- Capua, Syracuse and Tarentum all defected from the Roman cause to Hannibal. All had to be reduced by the Romans at great cost in lives on both sides, including the great scientist Archimedes, who was Syracusan. The war in Italy, which might have ended by 215 BC, would drag on to 202 BC because of the prestige gained by Hannibal and the various defections they engendered, due to Cannae.

Who was responsible for this disaster? It was all because of one man, the Leftist politician Gaius Terentius Varro.

First, it is important to remember Hannibal's background. He was the son of Hamilcar Barca, a brilliant general who did his best to salvage the Carthaginian position in Sicily during the First Punic War (264-241 BC). The Romans won in spite of Hamilcar's best efforts. A lesser man leading the Carthaginians would have been crushed years earlier. Rome took Sicily and also snatched the island of Sardinia during a mercenary revolt that Hamilcar put down. Hamilcar then took his young son to the Temple of Baal, on whose altar many young children had been slaughtered (yes, the Carthaginians were Canaanites who threw their seed to Molech (aka Baal) from the Bible), and forced him to place his hand on an animal sacrifice and swear to be an eternal enemy of Rome.

I interjected this to show how Hannibal, a Middle Easterner, was as dedicated to the destruction of the Roman Republic as Osama bin Laden is to the destruction of the American Republic. From one point of view, the War on Terror we now face is much like a continuation of the struggle between Roman Republicanism and the dire blood and flesh traders of Carthage.

This Hannibal had entered Italy, bent on Rome's destruction. He won two victories over Roman arms at the River Trebbia(218 BC) and Lake Trasimene (217 BC). He use the similar surround tactics he would employ at Cannae, although neither of these defeats were quite as catastrophic for Rome as Cannae would be. Still, in the aftermath of Trasimene, it was obvious that Rome was in crisis and it appointed a temporary Dictator, Quintus Fabius Maximus. Fabius was aware that none of the crop of Roman generals currently available had any hope of defeating Hannibal, including himself. He instituted "Fabian Tactics," a type of almost guerrilla warfare, involving small skirmishes with Hannibal's foraging parties. This made Hannibal's Army hungry and begin to slowly bleed away soldiers it could not replace, being so deep inside Italy.

The story could have ended not long after this part, with Hannibal's Army melting away and the general being captured by Legionaries in 216 or 215 BC and merely being a historical footnote, someone who got lucky a couple of times and made the Romans cautious. But this was not to be.

Back in Rome, Left Wing demagogues began agitating against Fabius and other noble leaders. As it says in the Book of Ecclesiastes, "there is nothing new under the Sun." One of these demagogues, Gaius Terentius Varro, began making accusations that Hannibal was no real danger to Rome, merely, the war with him was deliberately being prolonged by the rich so the rights of the poor could be knuckled under by wartime exigency. Does this sound familiar? It should for those of you who see and hear those idiots who still talk about our war in Iraq as "Blood for Oil." It does seem fantastic to the modern reader of history that anyone could be so ignorant as to claim the war against Hannibal was a plot by the rich. And to someone reading history a hundred years from now, it will seem equally ignorant that people claimed that the War in Iraq was a war for oil profits. Just like the terrorists in Iraq, Hannibal caught wind of the Leftist opposition to the war with him and ordered that the estates of Fabius not be attacked or disturbed in any way. He did this so the Roman Left would find confirmation of their delusion that Fabius and Hannibal were co-conspirators. Fabius defeated this ruse by selling those untouched estates and donating the proceeds to the Republic's war chest. Still, given the way modern idiots still wear "no blood for oil" T-shirts, even after Kofi Annan and Jaques Chirac were caught red handed getting oil profits for OPPOSING the war, I can imagine that many Romans under the sway of Varro's demagogy still believed what they wanted to believe rather than the manifest fact.

After Fabius' six month Dictatorship ended early in 216 BC, Varro took charge of the armies of the Republic. According to the Roman historian Livy, he promised his eager voters that he would eliminate Hannibal's the day he came in contact with him. Not long after this, the result was Cannae described above.

What was Varro's punishment for his lies and causing the deaths of tens of thousands of his countrymen at Cannae and indirectly causing tens of thousands more in the war that didnt have to drag on like it did? The same punishment Ted Kennedy got for Chappaquiddick. NOTHING. In fact Varro was given a vote of thanks for "not despairing of the Commonwealth" on his return to Rome. In the cruelest of injustices, the remnants of his Cannae Army was banished from Italy, believed to be bad luck. They were formed into two Legions to fight Syracuse in Sicily. And they remained on that island, banished from their homeland until Scipio came along, wanting to invade Africa. Scipio allowed them to join his invasion force, where they distinguishged themselves as a veteran core for his Army that ultimately defeated Hannibal at Zama in 202 BC. At least they had a happy ending, delayed though it was.

This coming election cycle is not unlike the one of 217 BC. We have Leftists making the same thousands-years-old argument that the war we must fight somehow benefits only the rich and not all of us. We must remember the disaster of Cannae, and that is what one gets when one listens to Leftists demagogues and puts them in power. In their own idiotic way, they are more dangerous than the Hannibals at the gate.

Blame America First, and Israel a Close Second

Lately I have heard Leftists ask "what if there was no Israel?" They imply by this question that if there was no Israel the Muslims would just happily live together in peace. Israel is responsible for all the ills in the "House of Peace."

As a student of Arab history, I shake my head and smile at these Liberals who act as if YOU'RE dumb for not buying what they're selling.

My answer to this question is a few questions of my own-

Do Muslim terrorists kill Hindus in Kashmir and India because of Israel? How quickly we forget the train bombings of Mumbai! Not to mention the bombing of the Indian Parliament not long after 9-11.

The fact is, Hindus and Muslims have been killing each other for centuries. Watch the movie "Ghandi." It shows one of the more recent rashes of Hindu-Muslim violence that broke out in 1947- the year before Israel was founded. And it wasn't the first. Or the tenth.

Do Muslims in Nigeria kill Christians there because of Israel? Nigeria is far removed from Israel and its Christians do not assist Israel in any way. A Christian peasant in Nigeria who is illiterate probably wouldn't be able to find Israel on the map. And most gun-toting Muslims there who's favorite sport is shooting Christians likely couldn't either.

Do Sudanese Muslims enslave black Christians in Darfur because of Israel? Certainly not, this enslavement has been going on for centuries, more than a millenium even.

Did the Turks massacre the Armenians because of Israel? Certainly not. Actually, thanks be to God, they ceased this policy prior to the creation of Israel.

Do Indonesian Muslims massacre Christians on Timor or blow up Hindus on Bali because of Israel? Nope, once again, the conflict predates 1948.

Do Shi'ites and Sunnis massacre each other in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran because of Israel? Absolutely not. That conflict goes back to the days of Imam Ali (656 AD) and Imam Husayn (680 AD), the founders of Shi'ism. We're talking 1 1/3 millenia here.

The list goes on and on. It is a collosal unfairness to blame all this mayhem on Israel, for things which they bear no responsibility. Genesis 16:11-12 forecast the above circumstances. The Angel of the Lord spoke to Hagar, the mother of Ishmael, who was the ancestor of Arab Muslims, "...you shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard your misery. He will be a wild ass of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him and he will live in hostility to all his brothers."

Israel is not to blame in all this. Blame rests with those sons of Ishmael who live up to their ancestor's legacy in spades.

No More Leftist Lectures On Science

In the wake of President Bush's vetoing human experimentation, aka "stem cell research" the Left has unleashed tons of its usual tired verbal flatulence into the air about Christianity being anti-science. Somewhere along the way the Orwellian Left has managed, with much undeserved success, to propagandize that having ethics when dealing with science is somehow "giving in to superstition." This most dangerous lie reminds me of a certain scientist who Liberals would probably love. He did many experiments in the same vein as those who wish to do the embryonic stem cell research. He never let a silly thing like Christian belief get in his way. And his name was Dr Mengele. Science without ethics will lead us back to the path he followed. Anyone who thiks otherwise is blind.

The Secularist Left continues its drumbeat about the "evil" "Religious Right" impeding scientific progress. But let's look beyond their Orwellian rhetoric for a moment at the facts.

As I stated in my "Left Forgets/Ignores the East" post, the most advanced civilization on the earth during the Dark Ages from 600-1000 AD was a Christian theocracy that knew the world was round. Yes, I refer to the Eastern Roman Empire, mistakenly named the Byzantine Empire. Science grew by leaps and bounds in this nation where Christ was considered the King and the Emperor merely His Regent on earth. The superior scientific knowledge of the Empire saved its capital, Constantinople, from a more numerous Muslim enemy in its two sieges from 668-675 AD and in 717 AD.

In the 17th century, not only were the Dutch Reform Calvinists (definitely Right Wing Christian extremists to the modern Leftist) the originators of the modern Republic, their Netherlands was the most scientifically advanced nation of its day. You've got to be when you're tiny Holland, but you're the strongest and richest nation on earth. When the 17th century Russian Tsar, Peter the Great, wanted to learn about Western technology, he disguised himself as a common laborer and took factory jobs. One of the places he made sure he spent much time in was the "theocracy" of Holland.

In 1688 hard-core Calvinists launched the Glorious Revolution to reclaim the Puritan notion of Parliametary Supremacy that their grandfathers had won and lost in Cromwell's day. The English appointed a Dutch King, William III, who acknowledged Parliament as his superior. The English monarch has never been above the Representative body since then. Over the course of the next several decades, under the stewardship of its Religious Right, England rose from a backwater barely out of the Middle Ages to supplant the Netherlands as the most advanced nation on earth in the 18th and 19th centuries.

And the piece-de-resistance is America in our own lifetime. Who's technology won out in the end, Judeo-Christian America or Secularist USSR? Even if we accept the Left's historical revision that America was Christianized by Joe McCarthy and Dwight Eisenhower (and this is truly a farce, the Declaration of Independence says we have certain inalienable rights endowed by Our Creator and the SCOTUS ruled in 1892 that America was a Christian country), the fact is, it was Christianized at the time.

So I think we can dispense with the notion that Christianity retards scientific progress. But if we look at the Left, they do not live within the boundaries of the ideals they so loudly proclaim. Science is supposed to be human curiousity, seeking knowledge through finding fact and experimentation.

A group of scientists, some Nobel Prize winners, believed that there were holes in Darwin's theory big eough to drive a truck through. Darwin asserts that small, simple lifeforms evolve into big ones. The problem is, there are no simple lifeforms. Even single-cell life is complex, if small. Darwin himself said that if proved to be the case, his whole theory would collapse. It was Alexander Oparin, a Soviet "scientist" who first proposed that we all evolved from a paramecium. Darwin apparently had more shame than to do that. So a group of scientists say that we've learned a lot since Darwin's day ad that his theories do not fit any longer, and there is much evidece for Intelligent Design. What does the Left do? Goes straight to our corrupt court system and shuts down all debate based on a non-existent law (Separation of Church and State). What's more Darwin also theorized that women and blacks evolved as lesser creatures than white men. We don't seem to be taught that in our schools right now. What do we get taught? The pickings and choosings of the Political Left from Darwin and the theory of one of Stalin's state-sponsored scientists. the Left imposes these lies on us with no right to debate or disagree. Is that scietific? Not in the least. It retards our scientific growth. Is it American? It is not Unamerican, it is Anti-American. And that is all the Left has to offer us.

Let us no longer sit and listen to the Left lecture us on how scientific they are. They squelch new ideas in favor of old and tired beliefs from an Evil Empire. They have no right to talk down to anyone about science.

Republic of Utica Answers a Silly Question

Austin Cline, self-proclaimed expert on Atheism and Secularism at About.com, feels that Atheism is neglected in our society. He wonders why he can't turn on the TV and see an Atheist politician strutting his stuff. The Republic of Utica's short answer is- you can Austin. Right now there is a powerful Atheist leader who is strongly fighting the good fight for the principles of Atheism and Secular government. His name? Kim Jong-il. His regime is the logical outcome of the so-called "Enlightenment." Don't the humanist achievements of North Korea make you swell with pride?

The truth is, there are two breeds of Republics. America and the UK emerged from the Puritan Revolution of 1644-1648. Oliver Cromwell's statue stands before Parliament in London as a testament. The Puritan Republic of England had several excesses (not nearly so many as the modern Liberal would have you believe, but they did nonetheless) and Oliver Cromwell became ever more like a monarch as "Lord Protector." Nevertheless the notion of Republicanism and Parliamentary Supremacy were birthed in England during this era. The fulfillment of the Puritan Revolution came during the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Though not "Puritans," the 1688 Parliamentary forces were hard-core Calivinists who would, by any modern Liberal standard, be regarded as right-wing Christian extremists. The chief philosopher of the Glorious Revolution, one John Locke, was a Calvinist who justified every point he made in his treatises with Scripture. He was also one of the main inspirations of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence. If one could put Locke's writings in a nutshell it would be, "God makes men free, as is His will and other men make men slaves." That's where the line in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" comes from. This is the sort of moral absolute that makes the skin of modern Leftists crawl. If there is no Creator, we have no Inalienable Rights. We only have whatever rights that the moral equivalence of Big Brother condescends to give us. And those will inevitably be little or nothing. Even in our society today, we can't even get out of the womb before the Left tries to tyrannize us, claiming right of life or death over us.

Speaking of Big Brother, that brings me to the other kind of "Republic." It doesn't really deserve the name. The Secularist "Republics" begin with a rush of populist collective democracy, but very quickly degenerate into corrupt oligarchies or dictatorships. The first such was Revolutionary France. The euphoria after Louis XVI's beheading quickly evaporated as the "Committee of Public Safety" began beaheding everyone. I am reminded of the musical "Pippin" where the idealistic young prince stabs his father Charlemagne, promising to change the "off with his head" style of ruling. It isn't long before Pippin himself is saying, "off with his head!" He then went to his father, lying there with Pippin's dagger in his back. He said, "can I have my knife back, please?" Charlemagne then rises, pulls out the blade, gives it to him and says, "don't let it happen again, son." I know there were many Frenchmen in the 1790s who were wishing they could give Louis XVI his head back, empty as it was. Instead the "Great Republic" soon had a new absolute monarch in Napoleon and embarked on a bloody world war.

Twenty-eight years after the heady days of storming the Bastile, the Russian Tsar's troops marched triumphantly through the ruins of France. Did the madness end there? By no means. A groups of Russian officers who would come to be known as the "Southern Society" brought the Secular Leftist ideals of the French Revolution home. From their humble beginnings the USSR would be birthed 102 years later.

The USA and the USSR were really the culmination of the true Calvinist Republic and the Secular "Republic" respectively. The Secular Left really needs to stop clinging to old, outdated notions. They need to realize that the Cold War is over. And their side lost.

Separation of Church and State?

Multiple Choice question for all you out there-

"Separation of Church and State" does NOT appear in which of the following Constitutions?

A. Pol Pot's Cambodia
B. Nazi Germany
C. USSR
D. United States

If you answered "D" you got the only correct answer.

In "B", Nazi Germany, Hitler, a New Age Neo-Pagan, did his best to de-Christianize his Third Reich. Hitler hated Jews, you see, and Jesus, being a Jew, was hated by the Nazi Party. The SS, who were the political troops of the regime, used pagan symbology and desecrated Christian wayside shrines on their axis of advance much the way ACLU tyrants do in America today.

Joseph Stalin and his Communist Party wrote a Constitution for the new USSR in 1936. It included Separation of Church and State. In the implementation of this countless numbers were murdered or sent to forced labor camps.

And who can forget the crown jewel of Secular Humanism, Khmer Rouge Kampuchea? The Separation of Church and State was very well enforced, enough to make the ACLU proud. Any display of religious belief earned the believer a one-way trip to a killing field.

With such a marvelous track record, it's a wonder that any of us here in America would not want this law in full force here!

The troublesome little fact is "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution. Look hard and long, read it backwards and forwards, read every word twice, you'll never find the words "Separation of Church and State" anywhere. This is a might strange to me, as Left Wing revisionist historians argue that this mythical separation was so critically important to our Founding Fathers. So why didn't they write it out plainly if they were so unanimous and unwavering in this belief? Most perplexing.

The revisionists argue that the Establishment Clause in the I Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." But there are several problems with this. First being, if it was so important to keep government and religion apart, how did civilization as we know it survive between the writing of the Constitution in 1787 and the passage of the First Amendment in 1791? Something as important as the wall of separation supposedly was, why wasn't it put in one of the Articles of the Constitution? Why put off putting in the Constitution UNTIL AFTER IT WAS RATIFIED? Here are the facts- The majority of Americans in 1787 and 1788 were Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists opposed a strong central government for America. They did not want to trade a tyrant in London for a tyrant in Philadelphia and they knew any national government would have the potential to be exactly that. However, most people that the new thirteen independent countries needed to keep some semblance of unity, because it was a dangerous world filled with aggressive empires. They liked many of the ideas of the Constitution. So many of the Anti-Federalists agreed to support the new Constitution in return for the promise of a Bill of Rights to curtail Federal power. Let me reiterate this- the Bill of Rights- Amendments I-X- were written expressly to limit Federal authority. The "Establishment Clause" of the I Amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no LAW RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion." (emphasis mine) The argument can really end here as school prayer or local Ten Commandments monuments are not laws made by Congress. However, when trying to properly interpret a law, it is important to understand its origin and purpose. And in the Estbalishment Clause we have the glossed over word "respecting." If Congress can make no law RESPECTING an Establishment of Religion, that means, in plain English, that Congress cannot make a law for, against or indifferent to Establishment of Religion. It cannot touch the question. It necessarily follows that Federal Courts cannot touch the question either. Unless, of course it involves Congress making a law to Establish a Religion. What does this mean? It means that the biggest violator of the Establishment Clause in America today are the thug lawyers of the ACLU and the corrupt, protituted judges who seem bent on giving them their every whim, no matter how tyrannical. The Establishment Clause was written to protect people like the citizens of San Diego who are being tyrannized by the ACLU over a cross in their city's war memorial. Or the young girl who was denied both freedom of speech and freedom of religion in her valedictorian speech in Nevada while the ACLU applauded.

So where does Separation of Church and State REALLY come from? I mean, something supposedly so important was not recognized by any court in the land from 1789 to 1947. Strange that something so vital to a Republic as silencing religion supposedly is had to be "discovered" by a New Deal judge over 170 years after the founding of our nation. The separation crowd bays that Thomas Jefferson wrote it in his Danbury Baptist Church letter in 1801. However, suppose for a moment that the ACLU was trying to put a child rapist back on the street, as they often do. And suppose the prosecution based its case on a document written by someone who did not witness the crime and wrote it 14 years later. The ACLU would, no doubt, argue (rightly) that this evidence should be inadmissable. But these same people argue that Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter, written 14 years after the Constitutional Convention at which he was not even present, is ironclad proof that "Separation of Church and State" is in our Constitution. What's more Jefferson was reassuring the good people of Danbury, Connecticut that the Federal Government would be staying out of their religious affairs in that letter. What comfort would the Danbury Baptists have taken from Jefferson promising to force them not to pray in their schools or break the crosses off their war memorials? Jefferson had won the presidency in 1800 on a platform of limited Federal interferrence. The notion of some New York shyster being able to tell people in towns that he didn't live in in Alabama or Georgia that they couldn't have a Ten Commandments monument in their public square would have been alien to him. It was the exact opposite of what he stood for. Thus, his letter to the Danbury Baptists is really inadmissable.

The first time "Separation of Chruch and State" appears in our Judicial opinions is written by the Supreme Court tyrant Hugo Black. It was in the 1947 Eversman v Board of Education case. Black actually ruled in favor of the Christians, saying that they "weren't violating the Separation of Chruch and State." So much for the stare decises of the 1892 Holy Trinity case, which acknowledged the obvious truth that America is a Christian nation. In any event, the Black stuck that little phrase into his ruling and the Left has been tyrannizing us ever since. The Eversman case was the latest in a string of cases in which the Courts applied the Bill of Rights at the state level, supposedly, via the XIV Amendment (which says that no state may deny immunities and priviledges of the Constitution).

Hugo Black and the Left argue that the XIV Amendment can transfer the establishment Clause down to the states, counties and municipalities. There are many problems with this, most glaring of which is the complete legal paradox which it creates. As has already been shown, the Establishment Clause forbids the Federal Government from engaging in any question of religion in the states. If the Federal Courts get involved, it is a violation of the I Amendment. But if the XIV Amendment allows the Court to violate the I Amendment by getting involved, then the I Amendment no longer stands, and by what basis do you use the Establishment Clause? Either way the Establishment Clause cannot be applied to a state or locality.

To wit- the Court can force New York State to honor Free Speech in the Gitlow case without violating New York's free speech. But they cannot force the Establishment Clause on the states without itself violating the Establishment Clause. The Left, as usual, is trying to have it both ways.

Truth of the matter is, Liberals in the 1920s, 30s and 40s believed that Stalin's Russia was the most advanced and enlightened nation on the earth. New Deal Liberals dreamed of a socialist world. In Article 124 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution said "there shall be a separation of church and state." It worked so well for Stalin, they wanted to try it here. You see, our Liberal judges seeking to impose the laws of Global Socialism on us is not a new phenomenon. It didn't begin with Breyer and Ginsberg imposing French and UN law on us a couple years back. Hugo Black and his fellow eight FDR appointees began this Leftist Judicial tradition by imposing Stalin's laws on us. And THAT is the true origin of Separation of Church and State in Modern America.

The Clinton Legacy vs The Reagan Legacy

I remember 1989 and 2001. I remember how in 2001 Bill Clinton was scrambling around like some great booby trying to find his legacy. Ronald Reagan, a humble man, let his legacy speak for itself in 1989. That year the Berlin Wall came down and Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Romania tasted freedom after decades of bitter Soviet occupation.

After the better part of a year trying to convince us how great he was for us, we still only remembered Bill Clinton for his romp with Monica Lewinsky. One might argue that that was all he deserved to be remembered for. I used to agree. The Lewinsky Scandal makes Clinton look like a mere buffoon, like Governor LaPetomaine from "Blazing Saddles" who made it to the White House. But he really deserves to be remembered for his truly most serpentine action, the Chinagate Scandal. John Huang, DNC fundraiser extraordinaire and Red Chinese Agent, sold access to President Clinton in return for donations to the DNC, his '96 presidential campaign and his legal defense fund for the various cases brought about by his sexual harassment. Clinton also sold military technology. That included missile technology. In 1992 the Red Chinese didn't have a missile that could hit Japan with any accuracy. By 2000 they could threaten Los Angeles. And guess who supplied North Korea with the missile technology with which it is currently threatening the Pacific Basin? You guessed it, China.

Not only that. It was the Clinton Administration that negotiated with North Korea back in 1994 the last time it sought nuclear weapons. He gave them some of our uclear technology as well as some fissionable material in return for their sweet promise not to build bombs with it. Any fool who would believe such a promise was never fit to be president. And now we face the danger of North Korean missiles. This is Clinton's legacy.

On the other side of history stood Ronald Reagan. He made the decision as president that we would stand up to the USSR. He asserted that the Soviet Evil Empire could be beaten and forced to relinquish the territory it enslaved. Liberal Democrats laughed at the idea. They saw their Soviet brothers as sophisticated and loved them. They saw Reaganite Republicans from Middle America as cruel bumpkins and despised them.

Reagan said we could build a missile defense shield and thereby negate Soviet nuclear weapon technology. Liberals mocked the idea all the way. They opposed SDI. Much to the regret of the USSR, nobody listened to them. Both Gorby and Anatoly Dobrynin (the man who negotiated for the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis) said that SDI did their cause in (both said so in interviews they gave on the History Channel). Liberal "geniuses" got especially snarky, acting like they were so smart and anyone who didnt see it their way was so dumb. And after being wrong about nearly everything since their love affair with Joseph Stalin, they still act that way. In any event Reagan took on the Communists and the rest is history.

Two legacies are casting their shadow over America today. Bill Clinton's, represented by the missiles North Korea is firing at us and Ronald Reagan's, represented by the missile defense shield rising to protect us. We should honor them both in the manner they deserve.

America The Not So Hated II

In my last post "America the Not So Hated" I briefly analyzed eight elections that took place across the Free World from 2004 to 2006. In this supposedly anti-American world, the score went thus- victory for 5 Pro-American Conservatives, two Liberals who promise friendly relations with America (one of these was Tony Blair, a loyal friend of the US) and one Anti-American Liberal, Zapatera of Spain, who was given the 2004 election by the 3-11 'al-Qaeda Madrid attacks.

I extend my apologies to John Howard, who I neglected to mention. He is the Conservative Prime Minister of Australia, a good friend of President Bush and America, who won re-election in 2004. He had faced off against a venomous pro-Islamofascist appeasement Laborite. His opponent had promised to withdraw Australia's troops from Iraq. Perhaps the Bali nightclub bombing taught the Austalian people the folly of appeasement. A footnote in the 2004 Australian election is that John Kerry's sister proved to be as big a traitor as her brother. She went Down Under to stump for the Anti-American candidate against Howard, our friend.

The truth about Anti-Americanism in Europe is that in most NATO countries back in the Cold War Era, 10-20% of the population were Communists or fellow travellers. In most cases these people call themselves something different since 1989, but they haven't changed who they are or what they believe in. These people didn't get angry at America for invading Iraq. They got angry at us for daring to stand up to their beloved USSR and win. There is nothing America can do to please these people. Anything America does to protect itself, like waging the War on Terror, will draw their ire. And these Socialists can easily call on thousands for their rent-a-mob demonstrations. And then the Liberal Media portrays it like we are making these people mad all of sudden by our Iraq policy. If you watch these demonstrations closely on tv you can see things like streaming red banners of socialism and portraits of Stalin. All very illuminating about the so-called "Anti-War" Movement.

As I acknowledged in my first post, there is widespread Anti-Americanism in the Middle East. Obviously. But there is also more Pro-Americanism than the Liberal Media will report. Most young Iranians favor restoring friendly relations with the US. Most Iraqis participated in their young republic's electoral process, embracing American-style republicanism. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, under US influence, are turning their once absolutist monarchies into more Parliamentary style systems. Egyptians are calling for a full republic like they have in Iraq. The Lebanese took heart from the US presence in Iraq to rise up and throw the Syrians out after thirty years of occupation. Even some who had once harshly criticized America now expressed their gratitude to it. The very opposite of what Liberals are saying (that our presence in Iraq is increasing Anti-American sentiment). There are more than a few Middle Easterners who are friends of the republican form of government. And developments in Iraq are quite pleasing to these people. Yes, there are also many friends of tyranny friends of tyranny in the Middle East. These people agree with Liberals.

I hear a lot of people saying that the US is hated around the world. There is no denying that we have many enemies. But these have always been there, from one end of Eurasia to the other. They've hated us ever since we decided to oppose Stalin and his clients back in 1946. We don't have any new enemies since 2003. As a matter of fact, thanks to the Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy in Iraq, we have thousands upon thousands fewer foes! God Bless them and God Bless the USA!

America The Not So Hated

The votes are in and they've been counted twice. Conservative Felipe Calderon has been certified the winner of the Mexican presidetial race. Leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is promising a court battle. However Calderon has won the election, albeit by a narrow margin.

Something I read about the campaign in the New York Times got me thinking. Calderon has charged Lopez-Obrador with being a staunch Anti-American in the mold of Venezuela's Bush hating warthog, Hugo Chavez. Far from admitting it, Lopez-Obrador indignantly responded he was no such animal and that he would maintain cordial relations with the US and encourage its investments.

What does this tell us? Even to the Leftward half of Mexico's electorate, or at least a majority of them, maintaining at least lukewarm relations with the US is important. Hugo Chavez couldn't win an election in Mexico (couldn't win a FAIR one in Venezuela either).

Now, when we listen to the Liberal Media, they tell us America is hated around the world over the war in Iraq. They cite this poll, taken by Leftists, that America is viewed as the most dangerous threat to the world today. However, election results in the various republics of Europe and the West tell us a much different story.

The only openly Anti-American Leftist to win was Zapatera in Spain, in March, 2004. Osama bin Laden handed it to him with the 3-11 attacks three days before Spaniards went to the polls. The Conservative Aznar was blamed for the attacks and the election was over before the emotions of 3-11 died down. All things being equal, Zapatera would be just another loser, as he deserves to be, and no doubt will be in 2008.

The Liberal Media played up Zapatera's victory to the skies. They barely mentioned the triumph of Pro-American, Pro-Iraq War Conservatives in Greece three months later. The Greek Right had promised to get the Olympic facilities squared away, and the Socialists had been making a hash of it.

Then came the elections in Germany, Poland and the UK. In Germany, Conservative Angela Merkl ran on a platform of restoring full good relations with the US and won. Poland elected Conservatives. In the UK, Laborite Tony Blair held on to a majority diminished by nearly 50 seats. But, as we all know, Tony Blair is a friend and not an enemy of the United States and he is also one of the architects of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In 2006 we had elections in Canada, Italy and, of course, Mexico. In Soviet Canuckistan, we had an unexpected Glasnost with Conservatives sweeping to power in the wake of rampant Laborite corruption. The Left narrowly won in Italy, but like Lopez-Obrador in Mexico, Romano Prodi promised Italians cordial relations with the US.

Where's all this hatred for America? None of the election results of any Western Republics indicate a major shift to the Left against America. On the contrary five of the eight elections in Western Republics yielded the result of a Conservative victory (six of nine if we count the US election of 2004). All three Leftist victories were by thin margins, one a good friend of America. The elections speak a different story than Left Wing push polls.

Even in the Muslim world, where there is much Anti-Americanism, many people there believe in us. The Lebanese threw the Syrians out after thirty years, inspired by the new Republic in Iraq. Democracy Movements have emerged in Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

Looking at the facts, we can see that the Left Wing Media has just been churning out more "Blame America First" garbage when it tries to scare us with all the tales of how the US is so hated all around the world.

Happy 4th of Quinctilis

I wanted to wish all you citizes of the Republic of Utica out there a Happy 4th of Quinctilis. In the days when Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis walked the Earth, that is what this month was called, and next month would be called Sextilis. However, a Left Wing politician came on the scene in Rome, wanting to be King. He renamed Quinctilis "Julius" after himself, and his successor renamed Sextilis "August" after himself (such megalomania! Even Uncle Joe Stalin never tried that).

Being staunchly republican in my ways, I propose that we return the ancient names of our two hottest months to their ancient names. Let us not honor the Leftist who would be King and his successor, who was.

So.......

Happy 4th of Quinctilis!

Why Are Liberal Journalists Sacred Cows?

As a general rule of thumb, the Left does not believe in the Bill of Rights. They do not embrace these sacred truths, they oppose them. In spite of this staunch oppostition, they don't hesitate to invoke our freedoms if they can use them against us.

For example, Liberals do not believe in freedom of speech. Anywhere where they have strong control and there's no chance of a Conservative winning the next election, they impose political correctness and speech codes. They do this to avoid anyone being "offended" (ie to avoid offending any Liberals by having someone express a Conservative viewpoint). They will not hesitate to punish anyone for alleged "hate speech" excepting their own, naturally. But on the other hand, they will invoke freedom of speech incessantly to preserve things like pornography or some anti-American garbage that no one wants to listen to. If you ask why a transvestite hooker needs to address a group of eighth graders they'll say, "you need to have all points of view." But if it comes to a Coservative Christian, "you might offend someone." An absolute double standard and they get away with it time and again.

Once again, the New York Times has betrayed America. The Gray Witch gave classified information to the public about a totally legitament program to monitor and stanch the flow of terrorist funds. Terrorists without huge amounts of money see their groups whither and die. And then soldiers and civilians don't lose their lives. But this simple concept seems to be beyond the ken of the ivory tower dwelling Mahattan elites. Or, more likely, it is't. But what are the lives of our soldiers or our people next to selling a few more newspapers? Pinchy Goebbels, given his preferrence for seeing an American soldier die over his enemy, is probably glad to have hurt our soldiers (for those of you who didn't read my last post, "Pinch" Sulzberger said to his during the Vietnam Era that if a North Vietnamese and an American soldier encountered each other, he'd hope the American soldier got killed).

Now, what do you think will happen if we prosecute Pinchy Goebbels for his CRIME (yes it is a crime to give away Top Secret Information to the enemy) of betrayal? You know he is going to invoke the First Amendment that he doesn't believe in. He's going to prance around going on and on about a free press. But, as anyone with an ounce of common sense knows, a free press doesn't mean the newsman can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Or to help terrorists we are at war with.

Sadly, a corrupt court system such as ours, which found a right to be sodomized in the Constitution in the Spring of 2003, but not the right to freedom of religion plainly written there being defended by Judge Roy Moore in the Summer of 2003, might very well find a right to betray America by the press.

Nonetheless, we must bring Pinchy Goebbels to trial, as well as his underling media propagandist Bill Keller. Right now the New York Times believes it can betray America at will and expose our secrets to our enemies and laugh at anyone gullible enough to believe that they do it in the name of a "free press" and to "foster debate" rather than to sell newspapers and advance their Hate America Agenda. Crime Boss Al Capone once seemed above the law the way Pinchy Goebbels does now. But Elliot Ness kept on him and Capone died of syphillis on Alcatraz. Someday Sulzberger and Keller may get their just deserts as well.

We cannot allow Pinchy Goebbels to paint anyone who wants him to face justice as enemies of a free press. The Bush Administration and the American people are totally in favor of it. But no one has the right to betray the lives of our soldiers and people to sell newspapers. There must be a reckoning. It's time to make hamburgers out of the Sacred Cow of Liberal Jouralism.

Pinchy Sulzberger, 5th columnist

The Republic of Utica salutes Rep. Peter King of New York and Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky for their call for criminal charges against the New York Times Dung Merchants Bill Keller and Arthur O "Pinch" Sulzberger jr. As a loyal American, I would love to see the two get punished.

The New York Times hasn't really been a source of quality journalism for decades now, but it has really taken a nosedive since 1992 when "Junior" took over from his father "Punch" Sulzberger. The Liberal bias has been worse than it was under daddykins, who obviously spoiled his little punk rotten and never let him face the real world. Jayson Blair was caught making politically correct Fairy Tales out of whole cloth. The New York Times aka Pravda West is just a Left Wing rag that makes stuff up to forward the Party Line. Jayson Blair was a mere symptom, only the most egregious offender. Not the only one by far. He was just the example they could make and say "see no Left Wing bias here."

Now we could merely dismiss "Pinchy Goebbels," as Michael Savage once aptly called him, as a mere Left Wing clown, just another cog in the Liberal Media regurgitating its spew. But no. Pinchy is a traitor punk. He learned to hate America in his university days if not earlier. When his father went to bail him out in Boston after getting arrested during one of his Pro-Bolshevik Murderer protests of the Vietnam Era, he asked his son a question. If an American soldier and a North Vietamese soldier came upon each other, which would little Junior want to get shot. And like the patriot he is, Pinchy Goebbels said he wanted to see the American get shot. What a patriot! Of North Vietnam. Hey Punch, if you couldn't raise your brat right, you shoulda at least left him in jail to cool off for a bit! But little Pinchy never had to face the consequences of his actions. Cosequently he has grown into a Fifth Columnist traitor with no love of country or respect.

And now he published a story that blew the cover of our classified operations catching the cashflow of terrorists. So, if an 'al-Qaeda terrorist gets financed and blows up another pizza parlor with a bunch of kids in it, who cares? Not Pinchy. It doesn't affect him. Prince Pinchy has never had to face any dire consequences. Well, it's time he did. As a former American soldier that Pinchy would love to see shot, I demand that my government protect my people from this traitor that hates them. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE. The law says he must be punished. Do it Gonzalez!!!!

The Left Forgets/Ignores the East

Is anybody out there aware of the fact that 1000 years ago the most culturally and technologically advanced civilization on earth was a Christian theocracy that knew the Earth was round? That's right people, it's true. The Eastern Roman Empire, mistakenly referred to as the "Byzantine Empire" had the finest technology and naval and civilian ships in the world. It's economy was the most stable and they came from all over the world to trade. The ruler of the Empire, centered on the opulent city of Constantinople, was Khristos Pantokrator, Christ the Ruler of All. The Basileus Rhomaion, the Roman Emperor, was merely his vassal, his regent on Earth. Eratosthenes of Alexandria calculated that the Earth was round in the 3rd century BC. His works were still extant and widely read in the libraries of the Empire a thousand years ago. And they were believed. Far from stifling scientific progress, Roman science grew by leaps and bounds in the Christian period from 350 AD- ca 1180 AD.

Why isn't your average Public School child taught about this? Why, instead, are they taught that Christianity hampers science? I heard a very ignorant woman on tv many years ago. She said that Christianity so stifled scientific progress that we'd have had a man on the Moon by 300 AD if there had been no Christianity. To make an uninformed statement like that, she has to have absolutely zero knowledge of Rome when its capital was Constantinople. Quite the contrary, in the more Christian areas of the Roman Empire from the 3rd Century- 6th Century AD (those areas furthest to the South and East, closest to Jerusalem) the economies and innovations grew. The economy in that period collapsed in the most pagan areas of the Empire, those furthest to the North and West (ie furthest in the Empire from Jerusalem).

Part of the blame lies with the disdain that early modern classicists like Edward Gibbon had for the Byzantine period of the Roman Empire. Thus, this period was glossed over in our education systems. And it's not like the Liberals who've dumbed down our Public Schools in the last forty years are going to have any revival of the study of this. Leftists, with an incomplete picture of the Medieval Period, looking at it Western and Arabic, but ignoring the whole world in between them, the remnant of the Roman World, centered on Greece and Asia Minor.

The Left looks at the collapsed economy of the Medieval West from ca 500-1000 AD and, in its irrational hatred for Christianity, chooses to blame it. They act as if the incessant Germanic invasions of these places from 165-486 AD had nothing at all to do with it. The Muslim invasions of the 7th and 8th centuries AD which reduced or nearly cut off trade with vast swaths of the East, formerly ruled by Rome (ie Egypt, Syria, Africa Proconsularis). And let's not forget Attila the Hun!

Christianity, on the contrary, preserved what little of the knowledge of the Roman Period that remained in the West in the monastaries.

So what happens? The Left, in its worldview, forgets what happens in the East. If they looked at the great technological progress in Constantinople, they'd know that Christianity, if anything, spurs science along. Christianity gives people a belief that universe is an ordered place, a place of Intelligent Design, and that all they have to do is figure out the ways and means of the order, the design, and they can gain knowledge.

And it seems to be a pattern, forgetting the East. I realized this as I was writing about Khmer Rouge Cambodia yesterday. One of the many oft repeated lies of the Secular Left is "religion has killed more people throughout history than anything else." Oh really? Anyone who could make an ignorant statement like that is abysmally ignorant of the tens of millions murdered in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia and other Secularist Darwinist regimes that emerged directly from the so-called Age of "Enlightenment." Yes, Nazi Germany too was a Secular State, with Darwinist views (its racial policies) and Separation of Church and State was the law of the land there. So, on the contrary, 150-200 million people murdered by "enlightened" secularists in less than a century was bloodier than a thousand years of inquisitions. More people have been butchered by Secular Humanism than anything else in the history of man. Secular Humanism is the prideful self-deification of man. And when man tries to be God, he ends up being a devil. The people who are buried in all the mass graves from Berlin to Phnom Penh would attest to that. If they could say anything.

Of course this forgetting of the East is all part of the grander plan to rewrite history by the Left, demonizing the West, especially America. "He who controls the past controls the future," Orwell famously said. I do not believe it is by accident that our children are without knowledge of history and world geography. Our education system was the best in the world in 1960. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that what put it completely in the dumps by 1975-1980 was the influx of hippie dopeheads into the teaching profession in the 1970s. But its more than just reefer madness that has dumbed down our schools. This is by design, that our history is being stolen from us by the Left. If we have no past other than what Left Wing pseudo-intellectuals give us, then we also have no future other than what they deign to give us.

We need to read our history books, Red State America. We need to study the history of the East. And everywhere else also. We need to learn Arabic history as well. Our heritage will be completely lost to mob rule of the Left if we do not.

Red State America's Moral Imperative

The central topic of this post I have touched on in other Republic of Utica posts, so bear with me. But I believe it deserves its own posting.

The Left always loves to claim the high moral ground for themselves, something they have no right to do whatsoever. In their self-righteous tones they say to any challenge of their supposed heroism that we would still have slavery and women would be barefoot and pregnant if not for them. But both are baldface lies, or, at least, gross ignorance of history.

To pass an amendment to the Constitution, it must be ratified by 3/4 of Congress or 3/4 of state legislatures. In 1919, when the XIX Amendment was passed giving women the franchise Republicans held majorities in both Houses of Congress and also the state legislatures. What's even more telling is that these majorities grew when women started to vote. In the presidential elections of 1920, 1924 and 1928, as well as the Cogressional elections these years and the midterms, the Democrats got utterly skunked. This happened with the help of the newest Conservative Republican voting bloc- women.

Don't confuse the narcississtic harpies who hijacked the women's movement in the 1960s with the earlier suffragettes. The women's movement used to do great good before the medusas who run it now turned it into a hypocritical farce. They used to be Christian women who closed down saloons and brothels rather than support politicians who lived in them a la Clinton and Kennedy. Not only women, but men and children benefitted from their efforts, unlike today where they demonize men, kill babies and ruin the lives of women who dare to complain about being used like toilet paper if the men so using them are pro-abortion Democrats a la Clinton and Kennedy. No doubt if Mary Jo Kopechne had somehow floated to the surface of Lake Chappaquiddick and been resuscitated NOW and Gloria Steinem and other such hypocritical blowhards would have attempted to destroy her life a la Juanita Brodderick, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers and the rest of the Greek Chorus of Clinton's paramours. The Left traditionally resisted giving women the right to vote for the same reason the Right favored it- their devout Christianity and their dedication to family. Leftists would, no doubt, often make up many of the patrons of the saloons and brothels shut down by the suffragettes/Temperance League. So, as the facts show, the Left has been no friend of womankind. It was Conservative Republicanism, not socialism, that mobilized women and got them the vote. Of the many travesties perpetrated by the Left, the notion that they did so much for women is probably one of the worst.

Same thing goes for black people. In the 19th century and the first half of the 20th Left Wing Secularist Darwinists believed that blacks were one notch above monkeys on their evolutionary ladder. It was Conservative Christians who asserted that Blacks were made in the Image of God, same as Whites. The Abolitionist Movement was very Christian in nature, as was the Civil Rights Movement. Dr Walter Williams in his excellent article "Historical Tidbits" (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams1.asp) expounded on the 19th century Left's racism, as did Ann Coulter in her delightful book "Godless." The Democratic Party, the traditional defender of slavery and segregation, embraced Civil Rights merely as a pragmatic means of preserving its machine politics, nothing more.

It is important to remember that a welfare state is never created for the benefit of welfare recipients, but rather to enlarge the power of the politicians creating the welfare state. The welfare state does not liberate men, it enslaves them. It does not lift the spirit of a man, but rather crushes it. All throughtout the history of Republics and Democracies thugs and tyrants have subverted the freedom of their brothers and sisters just by increasing the dole. The supposed benefactor might be a scoudrel, but the dole recipients love him for his perceived generosity. In return their votes, which ideally should go to the most capable, the one who loves his country the most, go to a scoundrel who craves power. It is in this way that Republics die. Not because of oil companies.

Our Founding Fathers knew all about what I laid out in the last paragraph. They knew welfare state demagogues would come. Every protection they laid out in the Constitution was to protect our freedom from them. But I don't think they ever counted on the ACLU, the biggest agent of tyranny in the USA today.

So, in the public discourse today, Liberals get to portray themselves as big heroes to women and blacks and most undeservedly so. Any time someone opposes the asinine ideas Liberals frequently come up with must also be opposed to "womens' rights" and "Civil Rights." We really need to stop letting them get away with that. We must cite the Left's real history with blacks and women.

We must also tell the Left's real record on Civil Rights. For example the Civil Rights of the people of Vietnam and Cambodia. Somehow in the public discourse it doesn't get any mention that the Killing Fields of Cambodia were a direct result of the treason of the likes Abbie Hoffmann, Tom Hayden and Dr Spock. These men, and others like them, caused a US withdrawal from Indochina that caused millions to die and millions more to be displaced with only the clothes on their backs. Not only that, but they created a drug culture which has, directly or idirectly, ruined and killed millions of lives.

We in Red State America must burn the images of Cambodia's Killing Fields into our minds. Two million Cambodians out of a 1975 population of six million died. Angka, the faceless Khmer Rouge Party, would kill people for any variety of reasons in any variety of cruel methods. People could be killed for wearing glasses. For speaking French. For having any kind of education. Practicing any kind of religion. It brought a sentence of death. People were shot, bludgeoned, starved or worked to death. And they were piled into huge mass graves. Stinky hippies from the Left, far from being ashamed of abetting such atrocities act all proud of themselves as if they had any reason to be. How dare they? Every Red State American needs to recount what happened when they got their way and say "I remember what you did!" Whenever some beatnik points the finger of accusation at any one, it needs to be immediately pointed right back in his face.

We must never forget what the Cambodian people suffered. Especially since if the Left gets its way in Iraq, the Iraqis will suffer the same way. All those smiling people with purple on their fingers, proud to have braved death to vote- DEAD. (Iraq had a higher voter turnout than the US, even in 2004 when turnout was 20% higher than usual. And the Liberals have the brass to say that Iraqis don't appreciate a republican form of government? Iraqis do, it's American Liberals that don't) All the Iraqis who welcomed our soldiers and trusted in the republic- DEAD. Or enslaved to a new Islamofascist potentate. The Iraqi soldiers and police who bravely fought for their new freedoms- DEAD. But the American Leftists who would gladly make it happen? Sitting in Starbucks sipping lattes and either congratulating themselves on how supposedly wonderful they are or whining about what victims they are. Their ivory towers won't be touched by the havoc they create.

In Red State America we have to face the facts. The Left in this country has chosen a side in the War on Terror and it is not America's. We must defeat the terrorists and defeat the Liberals as well. The two are inseparable at this point. Red State America's moral imperative is this- the Killing Fields of Cambodia must never be allowed to happen again.

What's the Matter With Massachusetts?

I'm growing quite weary of the arrogant bi-coastal elites and their tired old Marxist cliches. Our Leftists call themselves "Progressives" as if their ideas are new and fresh and the wave of the future. A certain analogy goes that nations walk to the top wearing hobnailed military boots and descend into obscurity wearing silk slippers. Only within this idiom are Liberals the future of our society (if we let them be) and Conservatives the past.

But in all other regards our Liberal friends are way out of whack. I frequently hear "Progressives" argue that Middle American and Bible Belt voters vote against their "economic interests" in favor of some supposedly illusionary righteousness. Thomas Frank articulated this delusion in his tripe-work "What's the Matter With Kansas?" (short answer:nothing). But you know, even if we assume that an overbearing socialist bureaucracy is in the "economic interest" of middle class and poor red staters, that being taxed off their farms and out of their small businesses into an overbearing welfare state is for their greatest good, sacrificing one's principles for monetary gain has a special word for it. That is prostitution. So Frank wants us to prostitute off our cherished beliefs to jump on the welfare state bandwagon. And he asks what's the matter with US.

Frank wrote once, "For us it is the Democrats that are the party of workers, of the poor, of the weak and the victimized. Figuring this out, we think, is basic; it is part of the ABCs of adulthood. " Frank shows a lack of knowledge of history. The Republicans are the party of the working people. The Democrats are the Party of a welfare state and people who want freebees without earning them. The Democrats are the Party of the Predators, not the victimized.

What's more, this is not a new phenomenon in history. Republics are invariably destroyed from within by the self-appointed champions of the poor. Welfare states are set up not to benefit the recipients of the largesse, but rather the politicians who dole it out. The poor in Rome loved Caesar, but after a time of dictatorship, clamored for a return to the Republic. But it was too late to say no by the reign of Tiberius Caesar. The Romans had been mobilized by the growing Welfare State. The Caesars took control and once they had, there was no going back.

The truth is, the Democratic Party has always backed slavery. Frank writes as if it would be axiomatic that Abolitionists would be with him were they around today. Personally I believe John Brown would probably gun him down five minutes after meeting him. I'd like to see Liberals come to Fudametalist Abolitionist stronghold towns and tyrannize them telling them no school prayer, no Bibles in school or no Ten Commandments in public areas. They'd be very quickly run out of these towns.

The Democrat politicians supported Civil Rights not out of geuine altruism, but to bolster a sagging voting base. Democrats were and are demogogues who wile the very poor into giving them power via political machines. The GI Generation Democrats who ran the party from the late 1940s to the late 1960s(of whom Zell Miller is the last) were, mostly decent men, not the cynics of the New Deal or New Left, but nonetheless, Civil Rights was far more pragmatist than originally imagined.

The movie "Gangs of New York" dramatizes the utter hypocrisy and dishonesty by which the Demos under Boss Tweed built their Irish machine. Boss Tweed was a con artist and thief who gave the Irish crumbs of charity, not because he loved them, but because he wanted their votes and to have a lock on power and with that power be able to do pretty much whatever he wanted. And he did until Republican muckrackers took him down and packed him off to prison.

The Irish had opposed the abolitionists. The Democratic machine consisted of New Immigration immigrants such as the Italians and Poles, as well as the Hibernians. And poor White Southerners.

But after 1945 things were changing. The Irish, Italians, Poles and, more slowly and less totally, White Southerers began moving from the poverty stricken masses needing a demagogue champion into an independent Middle Class. Many of these who supported FDR in 1932 liked Ike in 1952. The machine was losing its cogs and needed spare. Where would Demos find a mass of poor, underpriviledged people to build a new machine? That's when they turned to Black people. And the Demos lost the South due to the emergence of the new independent middle class. If we presume that one has to be racist to win in the South, then Jimmy Carter (who won 12 of 13 Southern states in 1976) and Bill Clinton (6 of 13 in both 1992 and 1996) would both have to be flaming racists. Not to mention a majority of Southern Congressmen and goverors were Democratic until 1994. Walter Williams today wrote an excellent column on Marx, the racist.

We need to ask, What's the matter with Massachusetts? Why do they continue to re-elect the real-life inspiration for Jabba the Hutt, Ted Kennedy for forty years? Why do effete Yankee Brahmin Liberals continue to fight in support of America's every enemy? The Viet-Cong, Khmer Rouge, Sandinistas, El Salvadoran Communist FMLN, Fidel Castro, the USSR, Saddam Hussein and others have all enjoyed the benefits of support by American Liberals. Now who's interest is it to help these people? No loyal American.

I got a scholarship to go to an elite prep school with the children of limosine liberals for my junior and senior years(1985-1987). I had come home from travels in Europe and America was a beloved, cherished homeland that I had desired to return home to. I never imagined that there was a large movement of Americans who hated America so much. "I'm not into America" a classmate named Rachel put it mildly. How is it in anyone's interest to be self-loathing and to hate your country? Self-hatred is a severe mental illness. Someone who hates themself has nothing to offer or teach anyone.

Frank and other Libs say that Kansans voting Republican vote against their "economic interest." I say no. The prosperity that comes from free markets benefits everyone. Massachusetts votes against its interest in voting for Ted Kennedy the Hutt. If the terrorists win this war, Liberal Americans will no longer be able to continue on in their ivory towers, insulated from reality. It will come crashing in on them. Like 9-11 and then some.

To Benedict Arnold Murtha

Sitting on YOUR fat behind in YOUR air conditioned office, you criticized Karl Rove for saying that we need to stay the course instead of taking your coward's way out of Iraq. "He's not doing the fighting," you driveled, "our soldiers are." Yes, Jack(ass), our soldiers are, you aren't. And if we pull out and the Islamofascists take over in Iraq, it wont be your blubbery butt piled into a mass grave with Iraqis who have voted in their three elections. Your tubby bottom won't be dragged from your air-conditioned mansion and taken to a rape room or prison cell to be caned for criticizing Saddam (not that you were ever guilty of that).

You claim to care about American soldiers, Murtha, you Mutha, but the only, THE ONLY, beneficiaries of you ridiculous screeds are the terrorist enemies, but none of us are allowed to criticize you because you were in the Marines. Well, let me tell you something. Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Whitman were in the Marines too. Benedict Arnold, who's name is synonymous with treason, personally led a charge at Saratoga in which he was wounded in the leg. This victory that he won for us turned the tide of the Revolutionary War. If this and his heroic campaign in Quebec don't alleviate his treason, then don't think your time in the Marines makes it ok for you to serve our enemies and still have respect. Our soldiers have died because of the aid and comfort dirtbags like you have given our enemies. They would have given up if not for the fact that they knew they could count on "Americans" like you to lend them a hand. So don't tell me what a big hero or great American you are.

And if you wonder who I am, I am a veteran of the 3rd Infantry Division. I was in the First Wave of what would have been Clinton's EXACT SAME invasion of Iraq which began to deploy in February, 1998. Clinton gave the exact same reasons for going there that Bush did in 2003. The only thing that pre-empted it was Kofi Annan saying that Saddam would get ONE LAST CHANCE. And you supported the invasion then, hypocrite. So don't give me any crap about how Bush lied to you. You are the liar. And you are seeking power at the expense of American lives and strength. That makes you a traitor too. I hope Diana Irey, a real American lady, sends your fat butt back to the air conditioned comfort of your mansion back in Pennsylvania where you won't cause any more death.

Zarqawi Documents Prove Liberal Media Lies

Thanks to documents recovered in Abu Musab 'al-Zarqawi's bombed out Headquarters, 104 terrorists have been killed and hundreds more taken prisoner. Dozens of weapons caches have been captured. But of almost equal importance is the insight we gained into 'al-Qaeda's state in Iraq.

The 21st century's Ho Chi Minh despaired of the state of his terror organization. He was writing that America was winning the war and he wasn't replacing his combat losses. Do you remember how Liberal "Geniuses" went on and on about how we were "creating more terrorists"? Yeah right. Zarqawi complained about how he wasn't getting any new recruits.

The late, unlamented Abu Musab also said that he felt the US Army was winning the war and successfully raising up a native Army for the new Iraqi Republic that he would not be able to defeat.

The Zarqawi documents prove that everything the Liberals have argued about the war in Iraq is the opposite of the truth. Those of us with our heads not in a very dark place have known this all along.

The Libs loved to compare the Iraq War with the Vietnam War, even tho the two were as different as Vietnam's jungle climate from Iraq's desert. They gave a whole new meaning to "stuck on stupid." However, there is one similarity between the two wars. In both cases the Left betrayed America in an effort to help a murderous enemy win. The Left to this day has to say that Vietnam was both unwinnable and immoral. Lemme tell you people out there, in 1965 there wasn't a more noble cause than preventing the Killing Fields of 1975 that we are all familiar with or turning Vietnam into the totalitarian gulag state it is today. But our "patriotic" Liberal countrymen used to hang posters and chant the name of the Bolshevik tyrant of Hanoi. "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, (North) Vietnam will win!" and then go spit in the face of an American veteran.

We need to remember the Killing Fields. Saddam had his Killing Fields too. And if the war in Iraq was lost more mass graves will get filled. Make no mistake about it. It won't affect, Liberals. Just as Liberals in 1975 put on Bell Bottoms and went to Studio 54, totally untouched in their little ivory tower world by the Khmer Rouge and Viet-Cong they helped bring to power, so too would they continue to go to their Starbucks' and drink their lattes. It won't be them filling up the mass graves. So what do they care?

It's up to Red State America, brothers and sisters. We have to defeat not just the terrorists, but Blue State America as well. Or millions will die.

Zarqawi- Death of a Democrat Hero

June 8, 2006 is a date of mourning for Liberals. An ally, hero and friend of theirs has passed away, another victim of American "Imperialism." You can rely on the Birkenstock-wearing, Starbucks' slurping neo-Marxist crowd thinking this even if they don't say it. Certainly Columbia professor Nicolas DeGenova who wished for "a million Mogadishus" to America must be crying into his soy latte on this day. In my book he gets points for honesty if nothing else.

I'm being harsh you say? I shouldn't attack their patriotism? OK, let's review. Liberals so love to pat themselves on the back. But let's look at the real record.

From about 1917 until the early 1950s, Liberals believed that Joseph Stalin's USSR was the wave of the future. Liberal Media journalists like I.F. Stone covered up Stalin's atrocities, like the man-made famine of 1932-33 in which tens of millions starved to death. FDR's ambassador to Moscow, Joseph E Davies, told the president that the victims of the 1937 purges more or less had it coming. New Deal politicians sought to remake America in the 1930s into the image of Soviet Russia of that time. Meanwhile tens of millions died.

In the 1960s Liberals chanted the name of Ho Chi Minh. "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh!!!" echoed the streets of Berkeley and Amherst, along with odors of marijuana and unwashed hippie bodies. Let's not forget that North Vietnam's ally the Khmer Rouge also was able to take over Cambodia and perpetrate the worst atrocities in history. Do Liberals hang their heads in shame as they should over their crucial role in helping three murderous regimes come to power in Indochina? Not at all, they hold their heads high and act as if they have something to be proud of. They didn't let Cambodians being piled into mass graves bring them down, man. They put on their bell bottoms and went disco dancing. Meanwhile millions died.

Liberals greatly enjoyed reading Mao's Little Red Book in the 1970s right after that lovely little bloody episode known as "The Cultural Revolution." Meanwhile millions died.

And the story goes on and on, one brutal socialist dictator after another. Castro, Ortega and more recently, Saddam. Next to this Rogue's Gallery, Zarqawi is small potatoes, a petty thug, a nobody. Nonetheless he was out there and he was killing some Americans. Not very many, in spite of what the Liberal Media tells us. And it's not like they care about GIs in spite of their protestations (remember the words of DeGenova, these are the true feelings of your average Lib activist, hatred for GIs).

Tonight as real Americans in the Heartland rejoice at our triumph, no doubt some tears are being shed in Starbucks' and in Student Unions on both coasts and in Chicago and Flint. The man Liberals had hoped would be the new Ho Chi Minh to kill many Americans has passed away and perhaps Liberal dreams of sabotaging another American war with him. Too bad, so sad.

Italian Elections Coming Up!

On April 9, 2006, the Italian electorate will go to the polls. The incumbent Center-Right Coalition stands for re-election against the Left. Silvio Berlusconi, a Communications Mogul, is the current Prime Minister. He led his Forza Italia Party to victory in 1994, as Newt Gingrich was winning for the Republicans in America. Berlusconi is a friend of America and of the Republican form of Government. Neither can be said truthfully about his opponent, Romano Prodi. Prodi, not unlike John Kerry, masqueradres as a good Catholic. However he is at the head of a coalition that includes two different parties of Communists and former Communists. Prodi is a moderate Pinnochio who dances a dance on strings pulled by the likes of Piero Fassini and the aptly named Fausto Bertinotti. Fassini is the head of the largest party in Prodi's Leftist Coalition, the so-called "Democrats of the Left." However, the "Democrats of the Left" Party had a different name less than twenty years ago. It was the Italian Communist Party.

Make no mistake about it. The Italian Communist Party just changed its name. It is the same people who served the cause of Bolshevism, the same old Bolshevik ideas, just called something else because they knew after 1989 that the name of "Communism" couldnt win any more.

The aptly named Fausto Bertinotti heads the Communist Refoundation, also a tentative (but at this point not certain) member of the Left Coalition. They openly proclaim themselves proud of Communism and they garner 6 or 7 percent of the vote in each election. They can be a power player and tip scales.

We in America need to pray for Italy, that the man who loves freedom beats the puppet of the old Bolsheviks. If the Left wins in Italy, they will begin the process that the old Italian Communist Party tried to do since the days of Stalin. They shook Italy as terrorists in the Red Brigades in their youth. Such leopards have not changed their spots, do not be deceived.

RE-ELECT BERLUSCONI ITALY!

Tired of Feminazis and Their Malignant Narcissism

I checked out the blog scene recently, as I've had time late at night. Quite by accident, I came across one by this Greek girl, the Devious Diva, she calls herself. She writes a sad poem to herself about how she's kept down, and oozes with self-pity. Looking at the picture she posts of herself, she seems no different from the many Feminist Activists I've known(and I've known a good many), in that she lives in style. Easily two thirds of the men on this planet would trade their lives for hers. But still, poor dear, she thinks of herself as a victim in this "World made by Men." Last I heard, God made the world.

After responding to the Devious Diva and encouraging her to grow up, I clicked the link she had to an equally immature Feminist blogger "The Red State Feminist." Diva is silly and ignorant, but she seems to have a little bit in the way of class, anyway. But the Red State Feminist lacks even that, going on about "The Patriarchy Propaganda Machine." If one actually stops to think a moment (something Feminists rarely do) you have to be a ridiculous person to believe that there is this Secret Star Chamber Patriarchy ever plotting new ways to keep women down. You see, it's easy for a bunch of pampered Feminists sitting in a Starbuck's drying their pedicured toenails to whine about men who had to do things like repel Viking invasions and work 16 hours in an Early Industrial Age Factory. But they never walk a mile in those shoes. Nor do they want to. What they want is to wallow in the manufactured self-pity and get concessions in life they didn't earn through their bogus victimhood.

I think most people of either gender go through a phase where they hate the opposite sex. And most people mature and grow up and get over it. The women who don't become Feminists. Tammy Bruce in her excellent book gives a name to the psychosis that Feminists suffer from- malignant narcissism. Like the Nazi ever convinced of the Jewish Conspiracy against him, the Feminist, self-centered in the extreme, is ever seeking out the wicked "Patriarchy" Conspiracy. And really bad stuff happens when people are this stuck on themselves.

Nazi Germans were malignant narcissists too. Hitler had Germans obsessed with their own sense of victimhood. The Nazi German watching a Jew thrown into an oven merely saw himself as a victim getting his own back, not as an oppressor. And likewise the Feminist watching an innocent baby torn from his or her mother's and thrown into an oven, thinks that she is the victim, not the innocent baby.

I think when Feminists first appeared people figured that a few concessions would appease these ridiculous and immature women and make them go away. But giving a malignant narcissist Czechoslovakia in the hopes that they won't invade Poland is vain. Now colleges have "Womens' Studies" classes that are cut from the same corrupt cloth as Hermann Goering's "Aryan Studies" courses in German colleges back in the 1930s. We have immature, self-absorbed fools brainwashing another generation of young girls into their corrupt delusions. Thinking that we can make them go away without standing up to them and telling them what fools they are is vain. And when you stand up to a Feminist with the facts, she usually cracks right away, as she is not accustomed to the truth or having to defend the whims of her own vanity.

We must ever be challenging these people. Some of them may face the truth if they are exposed to it enough. The rest, however, must not go unchallenged, must not be allowed to spew their propaganda to young minds without a response. Because a big lie can become a truth to a deluded mass. Looking at the Feminists, it's a case in point.

On her blog Diva paraphrases Hume- "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." Well, Feminism has murdered 50 million innocent American babies. And we've done nothing. Time for us to wake up. Feminists aren't just a bunch of funny, silly ignorant girl-children anymore. They are filling ovens now.

What Mess? Time For Some Perspective

A couple weeks hence, a Liberal professor friend of mine, talking about the state of the country in general, said "it's going to take eight years to fix this MESS!" I politely smiled and said nothing, letting my friend say his feelings without rounding on him. However, he and other Liberals might take my silence for assent that their propaganda is true and correct, so, time to fire back.

The question we need to ask is "what mess?" For the past couple of weeks the DOW has rested comfortably above 11,000. Unemployment is at near-record if not record lows. Anybody who wants to work and can can get a job right now. When unemployment was at 6% under Clinton, we were in the Workers' Paradise. Now, with unemployment under 5%, many people are still unsure about the economy. Why is that? It couldn't be that the same Liberal Media that forged documents in order to fraudulently alter our elections in 2004 is lying again? Naaahh, COULDN'T BE! Believe otherwise at your peril. In spite of the Leftists in the media giving the impression that we are living in days reminiscent of the Great Depression, the economy is doing excellently.

How about the war? Recently families of veterans have taken on the Liberal liars in the Media, saying that they are focusing only on bad things of the War in the Middle East and none of the good things. In the face of this obvious truth the Liberal Media had the nerve and the shamelessness to deny it.

Remember, who we are dealing with. Dan Rather brazenly denied his forged documents were forged when all America knew otherwise. Then he Clintonesquely said that the documents may be forged but that what they said was truth so we should just believe it anyway like good little Doublethinking Leftists. Right. We are dealing with CNN that willingly prostituted itself to official Iraqi(under Saddam) and Cuban government propaganda in order to keep offices open in Baghdad and Havana. So much for journalistic pursuit of the truth! We are dealing with the New York Times which had Jayson Blair writing Liberal Fairy Tales out of whole cloth, having been caught repeatedly! He wasn't the only one, he was just the most blatant about it. And this is nothing new. Liberal Media outlets defended Stalin during his purges. They said there would be no bloodbath in Indochina if we pulled out and when there was one, they tried to blame Nixon for the Communist atrocities! Remember that Orwell was inspired by the Liberal Media to write "1984." The two instances which really stuck in his craw were the purge of the POUM in the Spanish Civil War (of which he was a member) and the Doublethink which turned the hated Fascist enemy into a beloved friend overnight by the Molotov-Ribbentropp Treaty. This is what we are up against. Tens of millions have died with Liberal Media assent and they aren't through yet.

Now they are determined to have us lose the Iraq War. The buzzword is to call it another Vietnam. Most Liberals who make this comparsion know nothing about either Iraq or Vietnam, nor could they likely find either country on the map. A little recent history of Iraq is in order, to put current events there in perspective.

The first lie the Liberal Media Propaganda Machine puts out is that Saddam Hussein and the US were bosom buddies in recent history. But it should be remembered that Iraq severed diplomatic relations with the United States in 1973 over our support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War. No US Embassy would re-open in Baghdad until 1984. What's more, Iraq was a Soviet client state. It's military in the '60, '70s and '80s was trained by Soviet Advisors on the Soviet Model. Most of its equipment was Soviet. In the 1980s, the Iranians wanted to spread their Revolution all over the Middle East. Hezbollah was active in Lebanon after 1982 and in that year the Iranian Army launched the Quds (Jerusalem) Offensive. It was ridiculous to call it that, as it was launched against Iraqi forces still on Iranian soil. But they were advancing and their intentions were clear- they would have gone all the way to Jerusalem were they able. The only bulwark both capable and willing to prevent them was Iraq. Out of strategic geopolitical necessity, we came to somewhat of a rapprochement with Saddam and helped pay the bill for the war to prevent Iraq from being over-run by the Iranian fanatics.

Even this "alliance" was rocky at best. After launching an armored offensive late in 1986 and having his tanks blown up by TOW missiles made in the USA and Iraqi jet "accidently" fired an exocet missile into the USS Stark early in 1987. The Iraqis apologized profusely and swore up and down that they thought the Stark was an Iranian ship.

I read a book by a defense analyst of the Reagan Administration that had to have been printed mere hours before the Stark was hit early in 1987 which predicted that Saddam would start a war with the Gulf States once he was done with Iran.

So much for America's friendship with Saddam. The Liberal Media also argues that our war over there is a failure because the terrorists are still out there. To call them "Insurgents" gives them way too much credit. Again it is necessary to put Iraq in perspective.

Starting with Quds Offensive in 1982, which drove the Iraqis from the Iranian city of Khorramshahr (called Kuninshahr, or "City of Blood" by those who fought there) to the outskirts of Basra, Iraq's second city. Repeatedly the Iranians called on the Shi'ite majority in the region to rise up against Saddam and help them "liberate" the city. The Iraqi Shi'ites never stirred between then and 1988, when the war ended. In the entire war between 1980 and 1988 500,000 Iranians died and Saddam held Basra. In the three years between 2003 and 2006 America has lost less than 2000 men in hostile action. Millions upon millions of soldiers from many eras lay buried in the sands of Mesopotamia from the many wars fought there. But the Liberal Media would have you believe that less than 1900 dead on the battlefield is a tragedy of titanic proportions. Wars that are considered smashing successes by history are exponentially bloodier than Iraq has been for the US. THERE IS NO FAILURE HERE.

Not only did the Shi'ite Iraqis rise up for us twice when they would not do so for their fellow Shi'ite Iranians, they, along with the Korrds and many Sunnite Iraqis are participating in an American-style Republic which has been set up there. Their voter turnout is higher than US voter turnout, even the 2004 election which saw a 20% jump in eligible participation. There are many difficulties, but the Iraqis have gone from a Soviet-style Socialist Dictator to a true Republic almost overnight. Most of Iraq is quiet. The Shi'ite and Korrdish areas, which make up more than half of Iraq's landmass, have absolutely no stirrings of unrest. The uprising is contained in a small triangle from North of Baghdad to far South of Kirkuk, to the Syrian border. Many of their recent attacks are against innocent civilians (oh yeah, they're really gaining popular support by doing THAT!) or less experienced Iraqi police and soldiers. They just lose too many of their terrorists taking on US forces.

That brings us to the next salient point that the Liberal Media ignores. Iraqi men sign up in droves for the Police and Army of the new Republic. They are callow, but they are gaining experience and they have courage and good training. They stand their posts and take fire. The Iraqi Army is growing in size, experience and independence.

Iraq is the strongest Arab state. It is a leader in the Arab world. By making a Republican form of government the norm in Baghdad, it will become the fashion in much of the rest of the Middle East. Lebanon, emboldened by the advance of Republicanism in Iraq, threw out the Syrian agents of the tyrant Assad. Libya gave up its weapons of mass distruction, Qaddafi knew that if Saddam couldn't hold, he didn't have a prayer. Naturally these triumphs were all minimized by the Liberal Media.

Afghanistan is another example of why our Middle East policy is a triumph, and not a disaster. For ten years the Red Army had more than ten divisions of troops in Afghanistan. 15,000 of their men died. When we were poised to strike the Taliban in 2001, the Liberal Media kept bringing up that and the memory of the British invasion of Afghanistan in the 19th century, which ended in catastrophe and the near-massacre of the British Army. Against this backdrop, less than a hundred Americans have died in combat in Afghanistan over the past five years and most Afghans, like most Iraqis, are participating in a Western-style Republic.

How is this a catastrophe or a mess? The Liberal Media types, many of whom were hippies in '60s who spat in soldiers faces on the streets, claim they care about the dead soldiers. RIIIIIIIIGGHHHHT. Tell me another one. If they truly cared about the soldiers, they would not give our enemies so much free propaganda. The terrorists in Iraq would have long ago given up if not for the hope that the American Left will stab us in the back again and force us to pull out.

What mess? I can guarantee that it wouldn't take a Democrat eight years to have the economy in an utter malaise and have Islamofascist terrorists and Stalin-like Ba'athists crush the buds of Republicanism that are now sprouting in the Middle East.

As I noted earlier, the Liberal Media is the same bunch who believed that Stalin was the wave of the future back in the 1930s and explained away or outright denied his atrocities. They are the same people who helped bring about the Killing Fields of Cambodia in 1975. If they are allowed to win this time, they are not just going to bring Kampuchea-like Killing Fields to the Middle East, altho that will be a part of what happens. They will have succeeded in making the light of Republicanism dimmer here in America too. Lies will have triumphed over the truth. They will prove that they can still deceive the greater part of the American people and bend policy to the benefit of World Socialism and against America, Socialism's implacable foe. We cannot let the liars win.

Beware the Ides of March!

Today marks an important milestone in the history of freedom loving people everywhere. On this day, March 15th (the Ides of the Roman calendar) in 44BC, Marcus Brutus, Gaius Cassius, Decimus Brutus, Gaius Trebonius and nineteen other Romans took the life of the Man Who Would Be King, Gaius Iulius Caesar. I have read the accounts that many make- that the assassins acted out of personal ambition, rather than an altruisitic desire to restore Republican freedom. And in some cases among the other nineteen, I don't doubt the strong possibility. But history doesn't dispute the disinterested idealism of Marcus Brutus.

For those who are interested in such things, Gaius Iulius Caesar was not an oil company baron. On the contrary, his politics were what we would call Leftist today. He was one of the "great champions of the poor" who asks for more power than the Constitution allows, ostensibly for the good of the people, NEVER for their personal advancement! (YEAH RIGHT!!)

Brutus was inspired by Cato Uticensis, his uncle, who had been a mentor and father-figure to him during his life. Cato had chosen to die at Utica in the wake of the deafeat of the Republican cause at the battle of Thapsus in 46 BC. He chose death rather than bowing down to the tyrant Caesar. Cato had been the heart and soul of the Republican cause from Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 BC. However Caesar, through his superior generalship, defeated the Republicans at Pharsalus in Greece (48 BC), Thapsus in North Africa (46 BC) and Munda in Spain (45 BC).

The plot to kill the tyrant came about after Munda. While the Republicans were holding in North Africa and later in Spain, there was always hope, hope for a restoration from Caesar's dictatorship. But after that last triumph for Gaius Iulius, there was no bright spot anywhere for those who wanted to have no King. Decimus Brutus, Gaius Trebonius and Gaius Cassius contrived the plot. Trebonius and Decimus Brutus had served as Generals in Caesar's Gallic War. When Caesar was a lawful General of the Republic, fighting external enemies, they were very much on his side. In the case of Decimus Brutus, he had even shared Caesar's Leftist politics in his youth. The plotters, "the Liberators", as they would call themselves after the deed was done, knew they needed Marcus Brutus involved, who was descended from that Brutus who drove out the last of the Kings from Rome, as well as Servilius Ahala (through his mother Servilia Caepionis) who had foiled the plot Spurius Maelius to become King. When sounded out, Marcus got on board.

Sneaking daggers into the Curia Pompeia (the Senate's meeting house), the Liberators at first pretended to beg Caesar for the recall of an exiled friend. While thus distracted, Casca, one of the Liberators, pulled his dagger and plunged it into Caesar's back. The others drew and Caesar died of 23 dagger thrusts.

I do not revell in bloodshed or the taking of human life. But the Liberators had no choice. One man was taking away the freedoms of all. Sadly, the cause of the Liberators did not endure. They came heart-wrenchingly close to full resotration of the Republic in the wake of the Battle of Mutina in April, 43 BC. But with the formation of the Second Triumvirate by Marcus Antonius, Gaius Octavius and Marcus Lepidus not long after, Civil War was to break out and the position in Italy was untenable for Republicans. The Triumvirate launched a bloody and brutal purge worthy of a Stalin in Italy. The great Orator, Cicero, was killed like a common street rat and his head and hand chopped off and put on display. This was done by Antonius because Cicero had dared criticize his policies in his famous Phillippics.

The Republican cause would fall at last at the Battle of Phillippi in 42 BC. No serious attempt at a Republic would come about until the Dutch Reform Calvinists of the 16th Century and the English Puritans of the 17th Century. Our Founding Fathers had to look back to Ancient Greece and Rome for Republican examples. Our Constitution is designed to prevent some Leftist like Caesar or Napoleon from seizing control. The Founding Fathers knew a Caesar would one day come.

So take a moment this March 15th. Honor those long dead Romans like Cato and Brutus (who greatly inspired men such as George Washington) who died fighting for freedom, and who pledged their lives and fortunes to make others free. We may one day need a Brutus in America.